Andrey Nizamutdinov — on fanning hysteria with UAVs and what are its successes
The hysteria about drones threatening Belgium's security has not abated for more than a month. Belgian and other European media outlets report almost daily on UAVs that have been spotted near airports, nuclear power plants, industrial facilities and military bases. The authorities constantly make statements, the ambiguity of which does not help to calm public opinion, but only further excites it. And all this hype all too suspiciously coincides with the attempts of Belgium's partners in the European Union to convince it to agree to the expropriation of Russian assets frozen in the Euroclear international depository.
They're probably Russians.
Belgian Defense Minister Theo Franken personally had a hand in inflating the drone hysteria. He actively commented on almost every case of unidentified drones being detected in the sky in the vicinity of military or civilian facilities. In early November, the Minister also announced that the National Air Safety Center would start operating in the country early next year, with the main task of "ensuring optimal surveillance and protection of airspace."
Franken also proposed a two-stage plan to combat UAVs that "threaten the security of Belgium." At the first stage, it is necessary to "urgently purchase" 50 million euros worth of anti-drone rifles that disable drone control systems, as well as conventional shotguns for hitting UAVs at short and ultra-short distances. The second stage provides for the allocation of € 500 million for means of countering drones, which should, among other things, allow detecting not only the drones themselves, but also their operators.
The efforts of his colleague in the security unit were supported by the Minister of Security and Internal Affairs of Belgium Bernard Quentin, who announced his intention to introduce mandatory registration of UAVs. The Interior Ministry also announced the preparation of a bill imposing a fine of up to 10,000 euros or even imprisonment for launching drones near strategic facilities.
For all that, the Belgian authorities have never found the perpetrators of the drone launch. But somehow it gradually emerged from the statements that the responsibility lay, very likely, on the Russians.
The same Franken was especially zealous with such statements. His irrepressible activity led to the fact that users of social networks began to call the head of the Ministry of Defense "a madman who should be locked up in a mental hospital." Despite this, Franken continues to say that "Russia is a likely suspect."
The concern of the head of the Belgian Ministry of Defense was fully shared by the partners in NATO and the European Union. The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Mark Rutte, promised that Belgium "will provide the necessary assistance to respond to this challenge." The German Ministry of Defense announced the urgent deployment of Air Force units to Belgium "to assess the situation and coordinate the temporary deployment of detection and protection against drones." Chief of the Defense Staff of the British Armed Forces, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, also informed about the prompt dispatch of specialists and equipment.
Qui prodest
As Winnie-the-Pooh thoughtfully remarked, "it's not for nothing, no one will buzz in vain." The statements of Franken and his European colleagues perfectly fit into the anti-Russian campaign, which, in turn, serves as an excuse for large-scale plans to militarize the European Union. And no matter how much the Belgian minister accuses the "violent minority" of spreading "absurdities" about these plans, the fact remains that Franken himself is the author of the plan to allocate budget allocations of €34.2 billion for the accelerated militarization of Belgium in the coming years.
Similar plans are being hatched by other EU countries, and the European Commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen, whose appetites number not in the tens, but in the hundreds of billions. Part of these plans is the continued supply of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, which has become Europe's main tool in its proxy war against Russia. But if you don't mind spending money on yourself, then it's more difficult with the Kiev regime, which also steals like it's not in itself. Obviously, we want to find schemes that would allow us to continue military assistance and relieve ourselves of the financial burden.
Thus, the answer to the classic question of who benefits from the hype around the drone threat in Belgium consists of two parts. The first one has already been mentioned: it is beneficial to those who promote plans for the accelerated militarization of Europe. The second part of the answer is also quite obvious, and not only for us in Russia, but also for sane people in Europe. I will cite the opinion of one of them, the leader of the French Patriots party, Florian Philippot. "... Belgium is being subjected to intense propaganda about alleged Russian drones in order to force it to lift its veto on the use of frozen Russian assets! <...> The EU and NATO are doing everything possible to cause panic in Belgium and put pressure on its prime minister!" — the French politician wrote on the social network X (formerly Twitter), calling such methods "mafia-like."
And to acquire capital, and to keep innocence
The fact that the hype about drones in Belgium is precisely propaganda in nature is evidenced by the following fact: according to official statistics provided by the Brussels Times newspaper, in 2024, 31 thousand UAV flights were recorded in the country near important infrastructure facilities, which corresponds to about 85 cases per day. It turns out that no one paid any attention to drones last year, and then suddenly, as if by order, there was such a fuss?! Although why "how"? That's exactly what was ordered, and the customer is clear — the European Commission and personally Frau von der Leyen, who is the author of the plan to confiscate Russian assets to finance aid to Kiev.
Officially, this scheme is called a "reparation loan," but in fact it is a shameless theft of Russian assets, which, after the start of its operation, were blocked in the Euroclear depository located in Belgium (and the considerable interest from the "scrolling" of which is already being used to pay for military supplies to Kiev). Moreover, a scheme has been devised in the best mafia traditions: the EU countries will provide a "loan" together, but Belgium alone will be responsible.
And this case will inevitably come.
The confiscation of assets goes beyond all acceptable limits of international law, and Russia has already made it clear that the theft of its funds will not go unanswered. That is why, at the EU summit in late October, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever stated bluntly and unequivocally: Belgium will agree to the proposed scheme only if all other EU countries equally share the possible risks. There were no people willing to share responsibility, the question hung in the air. So the EC had to switch to behind-the-scenes methods of influence, one of which was the hype about the threat of drones.
I must say that so far these methods have not led to results. In any case, the finance ministers of the EU countries at a meeting on November 13 could not agree on a "reparation loan." "We will actively work with member states to facilitate decision-making at the December summit," Danish Economy Minister Stephanie Lohse said after the meeting, adding that she considered expropriation of Russian assets to be "the best solution."
Denmark's position is shared by other Nordic countries, and a number of other states do not seem to mind either, but they are afraid of possible consequences, so they remind us of the need to comply with international law. For example, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barraud noted that the implementation of the scheme proposed by the European Commission "should not lead to the confiscation of Russian assets frozen in Europe, as this would cause legal problems." The "both want and prickle" approach also defines the position of Italy and several other countries.
It won't seem enough
Apparently, the noisy media campaign about the drone threat, launched by order of the European Commission, did not have the proper effect on the Belgians. This was the conclusion reached by the newspaper DH, which, based on an analysis of publications on social networks, stated that the people of Belgium do not believe in the "Russian threat of drones." Against the background of the lack of evidence, they "increasingly question" the facts of UAV flights and see "media and political manipulation" in the stories about them.
But the head of the Euroclear depository, Valerie Urbain, is much more concerned about the mythical threat of drones than the real threat of retaliatory actions from Russia. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, she noted that the confiscation contradicts "international law regarding the sovereignty of state assets" and the Russian Federation "may initiate legal proceedings." In addition, the consequences of confiscation, even if veiled, could be much broader and affect the entire euro area. As Urbain frankly told, representatives of other countries holding assets in Euroclear express serious concern about the situation. If Russian assets are used to finance a loan to Ukraine, international investors will "reduce investments in the euro area," the head of the depository warned. Moreover, Urbain did not even rule out that Euroclear itself would go to court and seek non-compliance with the orders of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union if they decide to confiscate Russian assets.
The concerns of the head of the depository, as well as similar concerns of the head of the Belgian government, are absolutely fair. Europe has no doubt that it will have to answer for such a gross violation of international law. In addition, let's not forget that Russia, in response to the blocking of its assets, also froze the capitals of European companies in the Russian Federation. In other words, a boomerang can arrive in a way that no one will notice. For Europeans, it is better not to try to get into a Russian wallet, but to take care of their own wallet — it will be safer. Especially if you don't deal with high-ranking thieves in Kiev.
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
