It has become something of a seasonal occurrence: airports shuttering, military bases scrambling, and officials reaching for urgent statements about “unidentified drones” disrupting operations. This year, the cycle has returned and Denmark is now at the center of the story.

In September 2025, Danish airports from Copenhagen to Aalborg, Billund, Esbjerg and Sønderborg were forced into hours-long closures. Even Skrydstrup Air Base, home to Denmark’s F-16s and F-35s, reported systematic overflights. Officials described the activity as “professional,” “systematic,” even a possible “hybrid attack.” Yet, as in every other chapter of this saga, no drone was captured, no operator identified.

This is not an isolated story. It is a continuation.

A Familiar Pattern

• October 2024, China: Tianjin Binhai Airport suffered widespread disruption when an unknown drone forced the cancellation of dozens of flights. No platform was recovered.

• November 2024, United Kingdom: U.S. Air Force bases at Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell endured swarms over multiple nights. Counter-drone systems like ORCUS were deployed to no effect. Witnesses described drones of “different sizes and configurations.”

• November–December 2024, United States East Coast: A wave of sightings radiated out of New Jersey. Residential neighborhoods, airports, and at least nine U.S. bases from Wright-Patterson to Hill AFB reported incursions. The FAA at one moment warned of “deadly force” against drones, only to later insist many were authorized operations.

• December 2024–January 2025, Germany: Ramstein Air Base and other sensitive sites were targeted. Berlin responded by authorizing the Bundeswehr to shoot down drones over critical infrastructure.

• December 2023, Virginia: Langley AFB endured 17 straight nights of incursions. The U.S. relocated F-22s at considerable cost. The operator? Never identified.

Each time, the beats are familiar: night operations, multiple objects in the sky, lights visible to witnesses, radar tracks that slip away, counter-UAS systems failing to produce intercepts. And each time, after the closures and the headlines, silence.

Attribution Without Evidence

Public discourse has often defaulted to easy answers. “Russia” is the most common refrain, with “China” not far behind. Yet the chronology complicates those claims.

If Russia is behind these flights, how did incursions occur simultaneously in the UK, Germany and across the U.S. East Coast between November and January? Why would reconnaissance drones operate with their lights on? Why are these same systems not being seen over Ukraine, where Russia has every incentive to deploy its most capable technology?

If China is responsible, how do we explain Tianjin Airport (the country’s own major hub) being shut down by a mystery drone weeks before the UK wave?

And if this is some form of domestic testing, why target Langley AFB for 17 consecutive nights, forcing the relocation of fighter jets, or blindside Germany and Denmark to the point of emergency legislation and public closures? Tests are typically announced, or at least later acknowledged. These were not.

The longer the pattern repeats, the harder it becomes to wave away as coincidence or amateur mischief. Officials speak of “hybrid threats,” “systematic incursions” and “professional operations,” yet still produce no public evidence of attribution.

The Asymmetry of Enforcement

What makes the mystery drones stand out is not only their persistence but the contrast with ordinary airspace violations. When hobbyists stray too close to restricted areas, arrests often follow swiftly. In Boston, two men were detained for flying near Logan International Airport. In California, a Chinese national was arrested after operating a drone over Vandenberg Space Force Base.

Yet the far more disruptive incursions across multiple NATO countries (lasting hours, sometimes days) end with nothing. No operators, no wreckage, no prosecutions.

A Broader Lens

The reflex to label these events as “just drones” risks repeating the same cycle that has hampered the UAP conversation for years: dismiss first, investigate later, explain little. But treating them purely as UAP risks muddying the waters with speculation. The responsible position may be to acknowledge overlap without conflation.

• Drones can account for many sightings, but not always.

• UAP reports often invoke capabilities beyond current drone technology, but some “mystery drones” appear to push those limits as well.

• Both highlight the difficulty of attribution in modern airspace.

Whether the explanation is advanced adversary systems, unconventional domestic tests, or something still unrecognized, the public deserves clarity. Until then, mystery drones may prove to be the twenty-first century’s version of the UAP problem, events everyone sees, but no one can satisfactorily explain...