144 Russian Drone Incursions Near NATO Nuclear Bases

A claim circulating widely, a report to verify line by line

Since the publication of a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies on July 2, 2026, a claim has spread widely: drones linked to Russia allegedly carried out 144 incursions near NATO nuclear bases since 2024. This columnist wanted to verify exactly what the document says, without inflating or downplaying what is actually corroborated.

The report documents that between August 2024 and February 2026, hundreds of drones maneuvered in the airspace of a dozen NATO member states and Ireland, according to information reported by Stars and Stripes, which had access to the report's content.

What this fact-check will establish

This piece separates what the report confirms, what remains vague in its public wording, and what some media outlets may have distorted by repeating the figure without context. Rigor demands separating fact from shortcut.

A report from a recognized institute is, however, not a rumor. But a figure repeated without its nuances can quickly become misleading, and that is precisely what this fact-check wants to avoid.

What the report says precisely

The IISS report does not present a single, definitive count of "144 incursions" in the publicly accessible excerpts. Instead, it documents hundreds of drone flights over an eighteen-month period, spread across the airspace of several countries, with specific cases detailed such as Ramstein and Volkel. The exact figure of 144 comes from media summaries of the report rather than from a direct, unambiguous quotation in the excerpts reviewed.

This nuance matters: the substance of the accusation, an extensive and documented drone campaign, is confirmed without ambiguity by serious journalistic sources. But the precision of the single figure of 144 must be attributed to its media source rather than presented as an exact, verified quotation from the original document.

Verdict on this point: plausible but requires nuance

This columnist rates this claim as plausible and consistent with the substance of the report, without being able to guarantee the arithmetic accuracy of the figure 144 as repeated in some headlines. That is an essential nuance, not a repudiation of the story's substance.

Methodological caution does not erase the seriousness of what the report otherwise documents, with precise and verifiable cases.

Flights documented between November 2024 and early 2025

The report establishes that drone flights occurred over Ramstein air base in Germany between November 2024 and early 2025. These aircraft were likely launched from vessels linked to Russia, 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 level of certainty, while carrying the conditional nuance the report itself uses regarding the exact origin of the launch.

What the report cannot formally prove

The report does not provide irrefutable ballistic proof linking each drone to a specifically named Russian vessel. It is an assessment based on open sources 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 mentioned to remain honest about the nature of the evidence available.

Three separate incursions, one incident involving ten drones

This is the best-documented point in the report. 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 from the ground without hitting the aircraft, and no wreckage was ever recovered.

This fact is confirmed with a level of detail sufficient to be considered solid: precise dates, approximate number of aircraft, documented military response. This is the kind of verifiable detail that distinguishes serious reporting from an amplified rumor.

Why Volkel changes the reading of the whole affair

Volkel hosts dual-capable aircraft tasked with delivering American B61-12 bombs under NATO's nuclear-sharing arrangements. The report describes this episode as "a highly motivated and deliberate effort to surveil NATO's nuclear deterrence infrastructure." This wording, directly attributable to the report, is the strongest factual core of this entire affair.

This fact alone justifies the gravity of tone used in media coverage of this story, independent of the precision of the overall figure of 144.

What "substantial impunity" actually means

The report states that the drones flew with "substantial impunity" across European airspace. This expression does not mean no response ever occurred. It means the majority of documented incursions did not result in a successful interception or a formal identification of the aircraft or its operator.

A counterexample exists and deserves mention for balance: in September, NATO fighter jets shot down a swarm of drones heading toward Poland, an episode marking the first time in the alliance's history that its aircraft opened fire on potential threats within allied airspace.

Verdict: impunity is real but not absolute

This columnist judges this claim to be broadly true for the period studied, while noting the Polish exception, which proves that a forceful response remains possible when the threat is judged sufficiently clear and immediate.

This nuance does not dilute the seriousness of the overall finding; it clarifies its contours.

"Neither unity nor coherence," a direct quotation

The report states that European governments responded to the Kremlin's campaign "with neither unity nor coherence," and that NATO's official position "compounded the incoherence." These are direct quotations attributable to the report, not free interpretations by the press.

This accusation is therefore confirmed in its very wording, making it one of the most factually solid 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 by any specific country.

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

The exact origin of each drone remains uncertain

Neither this columnist, nor even the IISS report in the excerpts available, can assert with absolute certainty the exact origin of every drone recorded. Russia, moreover, has denied involvement in some reported incursions, notably in Denmark and Norway.

This zone of uncertainty is an integral part of the documented problem: it is precisely this difficulty of attribution that allows this kind of hybrid warfare to thrive without triggering a direct, openly acknowledged military response.

The exact total of 144 remains a summary to verify at the source

This columnist maintains a methodological reservation about the precise figure of 144, for lack of direct access to the full version of the IISS report that would confirm this exact count incursion by incursion.

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

The headline shortcut versus the report's nuance

Several press headlines repeated the figure of 144 incursions as though it were an exact, singular quotation from the IISS report, without always noting that it is a journalistic synthesis built from several elements of the document. This kind of shortcut, even unintentional, weakens the credibility of a story that is otherwise solid.

This fact-check prefers to flag this risk rather than reproduce it silently, even if doing so slightly complicates the reading of a figure that would otherwise seem perfectly round and marketable.

Why nuance does not serve enemy propaganda

Some might fear that a methodological nuance serves the interests of Russian propaganda by sowing doubt on an otherwise damning file. This columnist believes the opposite: precise, verified information withstands scrutiny far 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.

This fact-check's overall verdict

The substance of the accusation made by the IISS report is confirmed: an extensive drone campaign, documented over eighteen months, targeting sensitive sites including a base linked to NATO's nuclear-sharing arrangements, with a European response the institute itself judged incoherent. The precise figure of 144 incursions, however, must be attributed to its media source and treated with the usual caution reserved for numerical summaries.

This is not an invalidation of the story. It is a necessary clarification so that this serious story retains its full credibility with a demanding readership.

Why this nuance matters going forward

In a context where disinformation flows in both directions of this conflict, methodological precision is not an academic luxury. It is the condition for legitimate accusations against Russia to remain indisputable rather than vulnerable to challenge over a secondary numerical detail.

This fact-check therefore confirms the substance of the file, while refusing to give in to the ease of an unverified round number.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.