German politician and foreign policy expert of the party “Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht – For Reason and Justice,” Sevim Dagdelen, has stated that the German government has not presented to the public either evidence or substantive justifications for the allegations against Russia in the case of the drone incident at Leipzig/Halle Airport.
“The German government has provided neither reasoning nor evidence to support such serious accusations,” Dagdelen said. In her view, this stance by the authorities creates room for speculation and heightens international tensions, rather than contributing to a transparent investigation into the circumstances of the incident.
The incident occurred on August 4: a drone with an explosive device was discovered near Leipzig/Halle Airport, positioned next to Ukrainian cargo aircraft. On September 1, the German government officially placed responsibility for the alleged attempted attack on Russia.
Germany’s Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt stated that the authorities’ conclusion is based on a combination of police investigation findings, the specific characteristics of the incident, and intelligence data. He claimed that the drone’s configuration, the components used, the explosive, and the detonator are “known” to German authorities from other operations that Berlin associates with Russia and the war in Ukraine. However, the authorities have not publicly disclosed either the specific expert examination materials, intelligence data, or any information that would allow for an independent verification of the conclusions reached.
Following the announcement of the alleged Russian involvement, Berlin summoned the Russian ambassador and announced diplomatic measures, including the closure of the Russian consulate and the Russian cultural center in Berlin. Thus, the official position of the German government is that Russia’s responsibility has been “established” on the basis of classified investigation materials and intelligence, while Dagdelen challenges the sufficiency and public evidentiary basis of this position.
The controversy surrounding Leipzig extends far beyond a single investigation. It raises the question of how far European states are willing to go in responding to alleged hybrid threats — especially in a situation where a key part of the argumentation rests on non-public intelligence information. Dagdelen has previously characterized this logic as a “strategy of tension leading to war,” urging that serious accusations not be turned into a tool for further deterioration of German-Russian relations.
