Russian Activity At UK Drone Incursion Bases Confirmed

Liberation Times Opinion & Insight

Written by Franc Milburn  - 26 March 2025

In my initial assessment for Liberation Times (which should be read first for full context and comparison), `UK Drone Incursions: Adversarial Threats and the UFO Connection,´ I assessed the affected air bases in terms of their assets, capabilities, operations and attractiveness to hostile state actors.

I examined extant and historical Russian intelligence operations in the UK and Europe dating back to the Cold War, provided commentary by heads of UK and European intelligence and security agencies, and provided details of the modern nexus of Russian intelligence and organised crime groups.

I detailed the official response of UK and U.S. authorities, the countermeasures undertaken by law enforcement, counter-intelligence and security forces, with detailed assessments by technical and drone experts, academics and senior government security figures on drone activity at UK bases and the Russian threat in terms of hybrid warfare in the `grey zone.´

I assessed that the drone incursions were most likely attributable to Russian military intelligence, the GRU. This has now been confirmed by Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) as reported in an investigative piece by a multi-award-winning journalist.

According to The i Paper, three people with links to Russian military and intelligence sites were physically present near UK air bases before, during and after suspicious drone sightings last November.

The evidence is based on a database of open-source location data, provided by ‘a former intelligence official who monitors hostile state cyber threat movements.’

According to the piece the investigation revealed:

‘An individual, who over the last year has regularly been present in the Russian Embassy in Germany, flew into Britain in early May and was just metres from the perimeter of RAF Mildenhall during the November drone incursions; 

‘In May, another individual arrived in the UK who had also been present at Russia’s largest military facility in Tajikistan in February 2024.  They visited remote areas surrounding RAF Mildenhall on several occasions before returning to the Russian military base within two months of the drone sightings; and 

‘A third person, known to have access to a facility belonging to Russia’s main intelligence agency (GRU) in Moscow during 2023, flew into London Stansted in August last year. They then visited areas around RAF  Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall throughout September and October before flying back to Russia, via Turkey, where they spent time in a military district on the outskirts of Moscow.'

‘At least two of the individuals are thought to have worked as seasonal fruit pickers in close proximity to the airbases – visiting fields close to the airbases at night.’

As The i Paper notes, this would provide perfect cover for intelligence operatives given seasonal workers from the Former Soviet Union applying for temporary work visas:

‘A senior former British military intelligence official who has reviewed the database seen by this newspaper said it suggested significant Russian “grey area activity.”

‘On initial reflection this is not a surprise, this kind of activity has been prevalent in the UK and Europe for years,” they said. “The real question is where else this activity is occurring, which sensitive areas in HMG’s [Government] operations are under the same threat to external grey area activity.’

In my first piece, I examined what and who the drone activity was potentially targeting and why. I noted the utility of drones for carrying out intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), psychological operations, and kinetic attacks against aircraft on the flight line, the munitions they carry, the crews that fly, arm, and maintain them, and their families.

Sean Munger, a contributor to Liberation Times and a former United States Marine Corps intelligence analyst told the author:

“It’s Russia collecting on US / British / German installations and logistical processes supplying Ukraine. Potential pre-emption to a clandestine sabotage operation.

“The purpose of the adversarial effort is to: 1) Collect information on logistics and supply going to Ukraine; 2) Undermine NATO population confidence in institutions; 3) Undermine the belief that we are safe and removed from foreign conflict. 4) Proof of concept for follow on operations.”

A UK Daily Mail article that Chris Sharp of Liberation Times co-authored with Josh Boswell quoted an unnamed UK military source who stated that when drones started swarming RAF Lakenheath, security personnel were unprepared to deal with the advanced foreign technology.

‘The officer told DailyMail.com that drones were recorded flying at up to 170mph near the base, chased a police helicopter, and appeared to be controlled remotely using radio frequencies outside of the normal bands used for military or civilian drones. When one of the objects was detected near the Lakenheath base around November 20, police sent a chopper to investigate.

‘The drones were flying in set formation and then immediately locked on to the helicopter,' the source said. 'Long range UAVs [drones] that the US military use, there's a couple of seconds lag in the system. A report from the pilot said it must have been controlled by a controller within the UK, as there was no lag in the response. When the police helicopter climbed, the drones climbed with it. When the police helicopter tried to leave the area, the drones followed it. They were travelling really fast, faster than anything they'd seen before. From police helicopter footage, one of the drones was tracked travelling at 170mph.

‘The officer said one helicopter even caught the advanced drone on an infrared camera in a video which is now classified. 'There is a 30-minute video of the incident.. The camera on the helicopter was in IR mode, infrared. There is approximately one minute of footage when you can see a craft which looks like a fixed wing craft, and the manoeuvre that it does on the screen is like a very fast banking manoeuvre. It's very, very advanced technology. It can move very fast, and it can't be detected on any of the systems that we've currently got.

‘We ended up using some Special Forces equipment, and nothing actually worked, to my knowledge. Nothing ever suggested to me we knew what we were doing, or what we were dealing with.. '

‘The officer said that the drones´ average recorded flight time was around three to four hours – similar to the Langley incident – and which combined with their speed is 'significantly more advanced than any type of drone in today's civilian market.´’

Philip Ingram, a former British military intelligence Colonel, told the press that the UK drone incursions bear 'all the hallmarks' of a covert operation by Russian GRU.

“It's a distinct possibility if not a certain probability this is all down to Russian intelligence… They and the GRU are just a bunch of petulant little boys. They´re trying to suggest they have the ability to disrupt and influence through a level of nuisance action.”

Colonel Ingram also stated he believes something `more sinister´ may come from Russia, suggesting UAVs could be used to test responses and capabilities of Western forces as a means to boost Russian leader Putin's ego following failures in Ukraine.

Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon is a former commanding officer of the UK's Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment,  NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion and a Bournemouth University lecturer in disaster management. In another Mail article, he suggested Russian 'sleeper agents' could be behind the mystery drone swarms buzzing over US and UK military bases that have triggered global alarm, a defence chief has warned.

Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon claimed the drone incursions may be part of a Kremlin ploy to use covert agents to `test the waters´ and expose weaknesses in British and American base defences.

The Colonel suggested sleeper agents are operating, using drones to obtain intelligence on response times and assets to prepare for future attacks on Western bases.

‘It’s no secret that there are sleepers and stuff around,' he warned. 'It’s espionage 2.0. It’s the next stage. So, this is absolutely the case. You can approach people who could do a service for you, and I expect you can pay some young kid or young person money to do it. I would have thought the Russian and Chinese were paying quite a lot.

‘If you're a young person and somebody is giving you several thousand dollars to do something that seems dead straightforward, you will do it.’

This tallies exactly with the experts I quoted in my first piece and recent/current Russian intelligence activities including a fire at a Ukraine-linked London warehouse last year.

Lithuanian authorities have just accused Russia´s GRU of being behind an arson attack at an IKEA store in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius in May 2024 suggesting it may have been targeted because the chain's logo uses the same colours as Ukraine's flag.

The Lithuanian prosecutor’s office said the suspect acted ‘in the interests of the military structures and security services of the Russian Federation.’

The prosecutor general’s office stated that the suspects, two Ukrainian citizens, one under 20, one under 18 at the time, took numerous trips to Vilnius from Poland to scout and plan to set fire to and blow up shopping centres in Lithuania and Latvia for a reward of 10,000 euros and a BMW.

The Vilnius arson – triggered by a timed initiator – occurred three days before a blaze at a shopping centre in neighbouring Poland that Polish authorities say is part of a Russian sabotage campaign.

“These terrorist acts were aimed at severely intimidating the society of both countries, illegally forcing the Republic of Lithuania, the European Union and other states to reduce or terminate their support for the Republic of Ukraine, as well as destabilizing the most important political, economic and social        structures of the state.”

Investigators found that the IKEA fire was linked to the Russian GRU through a chain of more than 20 intermediaries.

“The chain includes the organisers, then more organisers for certain goals, then more intermediaries, all down to the perpetrators. It is a multi-stage, very complex system,” according to the prosecutor.

Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, are among the staunchest supporters of Ukraine in its war of national survival against Russia´s February 2022 invasion. Polish President Donald Tusk said on X:

“Dear allies, the investigation of the Lithuanian prosecutor’s office has confirmed our suspicions that responsible for setting fires to shopping centres in Vilnius and Warsaw are the Russian secret services. Good to know before negotiations. Such is the nature of this state.”

This comes as Polish authorities charged a Belarusian citizen with sabotage for Russian intelligence and terrorism, having been previously arrested in another case regarding espionage and participation in organised crime.

The Warsaw target of the arson attack was one of Poland´s largest shopping centres and the fire presented a HAZMAT risk to civilians.

According to The I Paper, the OSINT data on Russian movements inside the UK has been made available to UK and US officials and senior British politicians are demanding answers from the government about the ‘credible evidence here of the possible presence of GRU-linked operatives near Lakenheath and Mildenhall.’

Tom Tugendhat, former Security Minister, said the findings “demand urgent investigation” by the Ministry Of Defence and UK intelligence services:

“Russian intelligence are trying to recruit criminals to carry out sabotage attacks across Europe. This strongly suggests emboldened Kremlin activity here in our country.”

Austria and the UK have seen a Russian intelligence campaign centred around a Bulgarian national accused of spying and disseminating false information about Ukraine – former Wirecard board member and current fugitive Jan Marsalek. Three of his operatives were recently arrested and charged in the UK.

Historically, British concern about Russian activity inside the UK is nothing new.

Historian Dr Mark Felton has just released a presentation on the fiftieth anniversary of Operation Clockwork Orange, a secret conspiracy by members of the British establishment, military and MI5 against the Prime Minister.

“In June 1974, British troops suddenly took over Heathrow Airport in London. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was not informed.

Wilson suspected that this was the latest action in a plot against him by a shadowy conspiracy of intelligence agents, retired senior military officers and right-wing journalists, including such famous figures as Lord Mountbatten, the current King Charles III's great-uncle. Many suspected that Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent. Was Wilson right to fear a military coup, something hitherto unheard of in modern Britain? Evidence suggests he may have been right.”

The main `counter-argument’ against Russian activity in the UK was thus: “they couldn´t be Russian drones, otherwise Russia would have already won the war in Ukraine.”

This presupposes that the commentators know definitively UK drones were all anomalous craft beyond the next generation and one or more `observable’ technologies that would provide a strategic and operational advantage to Russia in Ukraine.

I posit that given that UK authorities are struggling to understand what they are dealing with, let alone counter them, then the only likely actors in full possession of the capabilities and specifications of the UK drones are those who controlled them.

Given the lack of open-source scientific data in the UK, we are left with the same problem. From the commentary above, there is everything to suggest advanced drone technology, but nothing anomalous or non-human.

Secondly, such a comment misunderstands the role of drones in modern warfare, especially as seen in Ukraine. We have seen long range attack drones (air and sea) and drones used for shorter range route denial by both sides, but you still need infantry and armour to seize and hold ground.

It is also about how you deploy and use your platforms: do you allocate a certain number of tanks to each infantry division as the French Army did in 1940.. or do you concentrate panzers in armoured formations as the Germans did?

The same goes for drones.

In the recent Kursk operation, we saw Ukrainian forces use drones to attack Russian units to enable a breakthrough and then for route denial to deter counter-attacks. The Russians then massed an electronic warfare kit to jam the Ukrainian drones and then attack Ukrainian logistical tails, denying Ukrainian forces the re-supplies they needed and forcing them to retreat.

Once in retreat, the Russians switched drone attacks to retreating columns and followed up with a ground advance to re-take ground the Ukrainians had left.

A variation on the above argument was, “If the Russians had had those [UK] drones then they wouldn´t have been pushed out of Syria.”

At the time of this writing, Russian forces are still present at both the Tartus naval base and the Khmeimim airbase, albeit having moved large quantities of kit and platforms out of them.

The Syrian central bank has just received a delivery of Russian-printed currency and negotiations about the future of the bases and economic ties are ongoing.

Another `counter-argument´ was that the UK drones were Russian time travel craft from the future, based on the work of somebody who claims to have given this technology to Putin. People can make their own minds up about that one.

To politely put it, maybe they should have come back before February 2022, so that mistakes were not made, the war didn´t drag on so long and Russian forces were able to defeat the Ukrainians rapidly within ten days to two weeks.

I am not rubbishing the future human hypothesis or the `extraterrestrial´ model of my SCU colleague Dr Michael Masters, all of whose books and published papers on the topic I have.

I have also spoken at length about future humans in multiple podcasts. I am trying to apply logical thinking and common sense where possible.

A former senior NATO civilian intelligence staff officer who follows the UFO topic told the author:

“I know them to be regular [not non-human UFOs] drones, not heard directly it’s Russia, but doesn’t take a genius to work out. It’s ballsy as fuck, really ballsy and I’m not sure what they achieve by it either. The UFO crew are being really silly, really daft.”

The UFO and nukes connection: last December, some podcasters and commentators suggested a UK UFO and nukes angle, given the past history of Lakenheath and previous UFO sightings around bases housing nuclear weapons as I outlined in my first piece.

There was no UFO and nuke situation last December, given that Lakenheath is still being readied to receive nuclear free-fall bombs.

In a February report on the return of American nukes to Lakenheath, the Federation of American Scientists concluded:

‘Three years of collection of documentation and observations show that the United States Air Force is re-establishing its nuclear mission on UK soil for the first time in nearly two decades. The change appears to be a direct reaction to the worsening political and military relations with Russia, resulting from its invasions in 2014 and 2022 of Ukraine, frequent nuclear warnings, and Russian deployment of increasingly capable long-range conventional weapons.’

‘As of February 2025, there are no known public indications that nuclear weapons have been deployed to Lakenheath. Our assessment is that the return of the nuclear mission to Lakenheath is intended primarily as a backup, rather than to deploy weapons now.’

‘This is consistent with public statements made by NATO officials. In 2021, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: “We have no plans of stationing any nuclear weapons in any other countries than we already have these nuclear weapons as part of our deterrence, and that… have been there for many, many years.”

‘Two years later, in 2023, while the Lakenheath upgrade was well underway, Jessica Cox, then-head of NATO nuclear policy, echoed Stoltenberg’s assurance: “There is no need to change where they are placed.”

‘Private conversations with officials further indicate that the upgrades at the base, at least up until now, have been intended to increase the overall flexibility of the nuclear posture in Europe by enhancing the ability to disperse weapons if necessary.

‘Once construction at RAF Lakenheath is completed and the base becomes an active nuclear site, it could potentially receive nuclear weapons from other locations in Europe in a crisis or emergency contingency.

‘Visible upgrades at bases across Europe are also designed to facilitate the rapid movement of weapons between bases to increase operational flexibility and reduce vulnerability to Russia’s increasingly capable long-range conventional missiles.

‘In the case of a nuclear crisis with Russia, a portion of U.S. nuclear weapons could be redistributed from more vulnerable NATO bases to RAF Lakenheath to improve survivability and complicate Russia’s targeting strategy.

‘Redistribution of weapons could potentially also be used to signal a willingness to use nuclear weapons during a serious crisis.

‘So far, we have not seen indications that the B61-12 nuclear bomb has been deployed to RAF Lakenheath. If this were to happen, it would break with decades of policy and planning and reverse the southern focus of the European nuclear deployment that emerged after the end of the Cold War.

‘It would likely also require consent from the U.K. Prime Minister. Even without weapons present, the addition of a large nuclear air base in northern Europe is a significant new development that would have been inconceivable just a decade-and-a-half ago.’

Significance: the current pace of American refurbishment of nuclear storage facilities at Lakenheath, will be of immediate prime interest to Russian intelligence and also perhaps, the intelligence behind Non-Human controlled UFOs, if and once nuclear weapons are re-deployed there. 

Project Condign – UAP in the UK air defence region: it is worth a reminder about what UK Defence Intelligence has said about UAP in the past – another topic I have covered extensively in podcast deep-dives.

The 400-page plus report – distributed inside the UK Defence Intelligence community in the year 2000 and released to the public in 2008 – stated:

‘That UAP exist is indisputable. Credited with the ability to hover, land take-off, accelerate to extreme velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile  - either manned or unmanned. 

‘The aim of the investigation was to determine the potential value, if any, of UAP sighting reports to Defence Intelligence. Consistent with MoD [Ministry of Defence] policy, the available data has therefore been studied principally to ascertain if there is any evidence of a threat to the UK, and secondly, should the opportunity arise, to identify any potential   military technologies of interest.”

‘The study also necessarily involved a brief examination of the current UKADR [UK air Defence Region]surface and airborne sensors and whether the airspace could have been penetrated by potentially hostile air-objects in the form of UAP.’

One of the key points about this most imperfect report – is that it denied any 'incursions' by UFOs into UK airspace and said that 'no artefacts of unknown or unexplained origin have been reported or handed to the UK authorities' – which contradicts what I was told by former service people I worked with.

The other key point is that however imperfect, it was an internal Defence Intelligence report produced for a Defence Intelligence audience and not the public.

However, what is fascinating, is that the report does give us a clear idea about what UK Defence Intelligence thought about the potential threat presented by UAP – which is far more than we have received from official U.S. sources – and which can be also understood in terms of the recent drone incursions.

The report stated:

‘The Ministry of Defence, charged with the Air Defence of the Realm, are only interested in UAP reports if they are found to reveal a threat or a hazard. For the purposes of the study it has been assumed that a threat would only be identified as such, if:

‘Controlled, unidentified, air-objects could successfully penetrate the defended airspace of UKADGE [United Kingdom Air Defence Ground Environment] with hostile intent in PEACE, CRISIS, or WAR.

‘Damage (or potential damage or danger) could be caused in the form of physical effects or electronic effects, or if there is a possibility of air hazard, such as collision or damaging incident with civil or military air traffic.

‘Objects within the airspace were found to be hostile if challenged and invulnerable to radar tracking and could out-manoeuvre our airborne or ground-based air defences.

‘Controlled objects could enter and leave the UKADR, having possibly obtained intelligence data (e.g. Imagery, ELINT etc.).’

If we look at what senior American officers have recently said about U.S. drone incursions, then there is clearly a detection problem as they have highlighted.

I am not saying that some U.S. “drone” incursions may not be attributable to genuine UFOs of non-human origin.

One can examine the work that some American technical experts have discovered as regards anomalous craft, that appeared off the east coast of the USA and appeared to exhibit anomalous characteristics.

What I am saying is that all the evidence for UK “drone” sightings, points to Russian intelligence activity and not UFOs of non-human origin. so I stand by what I said in my first piece on UK drone incursions:

‘My current assessment points to a covert – plausibly deniable activity by a hostile actor – that is being taken very seriously by UK and U.S. authorities in the context of heightened international tensions.

‘I am not ruling out the presence of more exotic technology or UAP, but rather attempting to put forward a more prosaic assessment in light of the information we do have.’

About the author: Franc Milburn is a former UK Defence Intelligence officer and British Army Paratrooper, with a background in counter-intelligence and protective security operations in hostile environments. Experience includes identifying threats and risks to UK military bases and extractive industries – including drones – and providing counter-measures advice. He has three decades of military and commercial intelligence, investigative and security experience, including Fortune 500, FTSE 100, aerospace and government clients. An alumnus of Sandhurst and the London School of Economics, he is an affiliated UAP think tank analyst with the Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies and a member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. He has previously written for: The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, The Middle East Economic Survey and the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.