Https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russians-planned-explosions-on-planes-flying-to-the-usa-from-europe/
Executive summary
Western and European security services concluded in late 2024 that a series of incendiary parcels and parcel-fires at logistics hubs in Europe were likely “test runs” for attempts to place explosive or incendiary devices on cargo flights bound for North America; Reuters, BBC and multiple U.S. outlets reported officials tying the incidents to Russian intelligence or proxies and noting there was “no current active threat” to U.S.-bound flights [1] [2] [3]. Investigations in Poland led to arrests and prosecutors said the parcel incidents could have been intended to cause in‑flight detonations; European intelligence publicly urged vigilance and described this as part of a broader Russian sabotage campaign [4] [5] [6].
1. Parcel fires as rehearsal, not a confirmed air‑attack
Security officials in Lithuania, Poland and Western capitals characterized July–October 2024 parcel fires at courier depots as “test runs” for a plot to place incendiary or explosive devices on air cargo that could later detonate in flight, potentially endangering transatlantic aircraft; Reuters summarised the official assessment that the incidents were linked and could have been rehearsals for attacks on U.S.-bound cargo flights [1] [4]. Polish prosecutors arrested suspects and explicitly tied the operations to attempts to test transfer channels that might later be used to send devices to North America, while EU and U.S. agencies publicly warned of the risk and stepped up aviation vigilance [2] [7].
2. Attribution to Russia — strong suspicions, official language varies
Multiple Western reports and officials voiced suspicion that Russian state actors or proxies were behind the scheme; Germany’s domestic intelligence and other Western services described a pattern of sabotage and “mayhem” traced to GRU or allied networks, and several outlets reported that proxies working for Russia were “likely” involved in sending booby‑trapped packages [8] [6]. At the same time, public statements used cautious phrasing — “likely,” “part of a plot,” and “suspected” — reflecting that investigative work and legal standards were still in progress [1] [4].
3. Immediate risk to U.S. passengers: officials said no active threat
While investigators warned the incidents had the potential to escalate into airborne catastrophes, U.S. and Canadian officials told reporters there was no “current active threat” to U.S.-bound or Canadian flights at the time of reporting; U.S. agencies nonetheless said they remained vigilant and tightened screening and liaison with European partners [3] [2]. This distinction—highly concerning capability and intent alleged, but no confirmed live operation underway—shaped public communications.
4. How the incidents fit a wider pattern of hybrid sabotage
Security analysts and major outlets framed the parcel incidents as part of a broader pattern of hybrid attacks — including drone incursions, undersea cable cuts, and cyberattacks — that Western governments increasingly attribute to Russian actors seeking to destabilize support for Ukraine and test NATO defenses [9] [10]. Reporting shows allied agencies have in some cases publicly changed tone from restraint to direct accusation as incidents accumulated, and legal moves (arrests, prosecutions) followed where tangible evidence existed [5] [10].
5. Evidence, prosecutions and limits of public reporting
Polish prosecutors produced arrests and statements linking the parcels to an operation aimed at transatlantic flights; Reuters and the Financial Times described law‑enforcement steps and cross‑border cooperation [4] [5]. Yet publicly available accounts emphasise investigative limits: many media pieces rely on government sources and officials’ assessments, not always on court‑admitted forensic proof directly showing state‑level orders. Reporting repeatedly notes officials’ caution in word choice and that further legal and forensic work was ongoing [1] [2].
6. Competing narratives and the risk of politicised claims
Some Western governments moved from private concern to public accusation; this shift risks politicising intelligence in the absence of full open‑court disclosure. Russian authorities have denied many such allegations in other incidents historically, and independent verification is often limited by operational secrecy and legal constraints — reporting therefore contains both firm official allegations and explicit caveats about conclusive proof [8] [10]. Readers should note that public accounts present a mix of confirmed arrests and exploratory intelligence assessments.
7. What remains uncertain and what to watch next
Available sources do not mention a single, publicly vetted court conviction proving a direct Russian state order to cause an in‑flight explosion; reporting instead documents arrests, intelligence assessments and prosecutorial claims about intent to target U.S.-bound flights [4] [1]. Future developments to watch are criminal case filings and forensic reports from European prosecutions, declassified intelligence summaries if released, and any admissions or diplomatic exchanges that either corroborate or rebut current official attributions [5] [10].