It is remarkable how and in what context media propaganda has created a narrative of an imminent threat to the Ukrainian president – and what the phrase “confirmed the incident” apparently means when the confirmation comes from a prominent figure such as the supposedly infallible Stoltenberg.

The former NATO chief thus “confirmed” that a drone had nearly brought down Zelensky’s plane during takeoff, reportedly missing it by a narrow margin. However, when journalists pressed him for more information, he also admitted that he did not know enough about the incident to describe it in any detail.

We can agree with Stoltenberg on that point. He clearly knew nothing at all. Nevertheless, European media are capable of publishing as fact any nonsense the “elites” feed them.

Even though these “sources” themselves admitted that they did not actually know much about the incident, European media – including our own – flooded the airwaves with alarmist reports about a “near miss” involving a Russian drone.

The Associated Press (AP) reported on the supposed immediate threat to Zelensky, and several other media in other countries also covered the story. Their headlines reported that a drone “nearly struck” the Ukrainian president. German public broadcaster ZDF ran the headline “Zelensky’s Plane Nearly Collides With Drone”, while Germany's main news show Tagesschau wrote “Ukrainian President Zelensky’s Plane Apparently Nearly Hit by Drone”. The country's biggest tabloid, BILD, told its readers: "Zelensky’s Plane Narrowly Escapes Drone Strike”. International outlets such as the New York Post cited Reuters under the headline “Drone Nearly Strikes Zelensky’s Plane Before Takeoff for Norwegian King’s Funeral”

It quickly became clear, however, that nothing of the sort had happened. The BBC clarified as early as Thursday that the air raid alert had been lifted after a crashed Russian drone was found 160 kilometers from the airport in Chisinau.

What Actually Happened

It is strange that so many articles included the phrase “nearly hit” in their headlines even though some outlets, such as Slovakia’s Pravda, stated in the article itself that there was actually no immediate threat to the president.

A Russian Shahed (Geran) drone entered Moldovan airspace from Ukraine, continued into Romania and then returned over Moldova, where it crashed. Because the drone had entered Moldovan airspace and authorities briefly lost track of it, a routine alert was declared across Moldova for about an hour. Aircraft – including the one waiting in Chisinau with Zelensky on board – were unable to take off.

Reports that the drone was 160 km away despite allegedly having “nearly struck” Zelensky’s plane were treated as insignificant side notes in some articles. In others, this detail was not even mentioned.

Ukraine itself dismissed the report as exaggerated. Naturally, admitting that a Russian drone had nearly struck the president would be a public relations and security disaster for the country’s leadership.

Zelensky did not comment publicly on the incident. Upon arriving in Oslo, he met with Støre, Stoltenberg and the Norwegian foreign minister. They primarily discussed military aid to Ukraine, strengthening air defense and further support for the country. From there, he flew to Canada as part of a tour during which he campaigned for stronger Ukrainian air defenses.

The propaganda about an imminent threat to his plane from a Russian drone fit neatly into this campaign. The Norwegian prime minister reinforced the message, stating in connection with the talks that Ukraine needed additional air defense capabilities.

Media reports featuring the aforementioned headlines frequently noted that Ukraine continues to face regular Russian drone and missile attacks while seeking to strengthen its air defenses.

This is one reason Støre described the “incident” as extremely concerning and emphasized that such situations pose a serious risk to civilian air traffic.

That Was a Close Call!

Because of the alert, the president’s plane had not even taken off by the time the drone crashed into a sunflower field somewhere in northern Moldova. Only after the alert at Chisinau airport was lifted was the president able to fly to Norway, about an hour behind schedule.

Statement reported on the fabricated incident in a somewhat more level-headed manner, emphasizing that the account was based on a statement by the Norwegian prime minister and highlighting the contradictory nature of the available information. Faced with such misinformation and ubiquitous propaganda, it is not always easy to make sense of events. But when information is this unclear, it is better to not rely exclusively on statements from a third party.

The Information Front Prevails

On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov addressed the situation, stating that Zelensky’s plane had not been in danger and accusing Ukraine of staging provocations aimed at dragging its Western allies into the war.

The AP article concludes its account of his statement with the obligatory line: “Peskov provided no evidence to support his claim.”

Since the European journalist apparently cannot figure it out on his own, Peskov was presumably supposed to provide proof that the deadly Russian drone could not have endangered Zelensky while it was chopping off a few heads – of sunflowers – on the other side of the country.

Fortunately, Stoltenberg’s “evidence” – “I don’t know any details” – was far more robust. His message – that the drone had missed Zelensky by a hair’s breadth as he took off – found its way straight into media headlines as a factual assertion.

The statements of these supposed authorities should perhaps be interpreted in the same light, given that for four years they have been telling us that Ukraine is systematically moving toward victory in the war. The distance between this unquestioned dogma and the truth is similar to the distance between Chisinau and the crash site of the Russian drone.

However, blaming journalists for making such grotesque mistakes would be inappropriate, even unsupportive. They, too, have a hard time dealing with war “experts”. After all, these authorities must not be questioned.

Not every journalist can handle the prospect of ending up on a list of pro-Russian conspirators and reading that they are a “hybrid threat” dangerous to society. Those reluctant to face such consequences will prefer to parrot obvious nonsense. Journalists from the communist era could tell you a thing or two about such professional dilemmas – and about how easily one can succumb to them.

It is better to steel oneself against this media diagnosis in advance and anticipate it, because the next time Zelensky’s armored limousine hits a goose on the highway, it could be followed by sensational headlines about an aggressive attack by a flock of dangerous birds flying just above the ground, about which “we do not know the details”.

Not to mention the story of the masked, feathered creature that unexpectedly got close to Zelensky, launched a head-on attack on his vehicle with suicidal determination and “nearly” cost him his life.