—Irish media RTE update see below

The latest wave of airline bomb threats across Europe (5–6 November 2026) has been publicly acknowledged by several airlines, airports, government agencies and aviation organisations.

The length of the list involved in stoking fear and/or testing Europe’s ability to handle “hoax” threats without causing harm is impressively long indeed.

Meanwhile Epstein collaborators remain untouched 7 years after he died.

An important distinction: some organisations have confirmed receiving threats, while others have disclosed the operational disruption or the results of security investigations.

The most significant publicly identified organisations are:

1. Airlines that have publicly acknowledged threats

• Ryanair – multiple flights, including three flights to Sofia.
• Finnair – confirmed two flights faced hoax bomb scares.
• Wizz Air – acknowledged threats affecting several airlines.
• LOT Polish Airlines – confirmed a Warsaw–Brussels flight had been checked.
• Aer Lingus – Dublin–Rome flight diverted to a French military base.
• Air Serbia – confirmed a threat against its Belgrade–Bucharest flight.
• Jettime – one Helsinki–Vienna flight was affected.
• EasyJet, Iberia, Air Europa and KLM – flights identified in the reporting as affected. Reuters +2

2. Government and aviation organisations that have disclosed information

Organisation

What it disclosed

French Prime Minister’s Office

Aer Lingus diversion and military interception

Bulgarian Air Force

Fighter-jet escorts for three Ryanair flights

Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI)

Threat involving a KLM flight

Spanish National Police

Three emailed threats

Czech Police

Searches of four aircraft

Italian Air Force

Escort of a Finnair aircraft

Croatian Defence Ministry

Interception of the Finnair aircraft

British Department for Transport

Described the threats as malicious hoaxes

European Commission – Transport

Confirmed aviation-security information sharing

Reuters +2

3. The organisation allegedly claiming responsibility

The name appearing in some of the threatening emails is Male State (also called Men’s State), an anti-feminist movement originating in Russia.

However, this is a crucial distinction:

• The emails reportedly used the group’s name.
• Its founder, Vladislav Pozdnyakov, denied involvement.
• There is no independently verified evidence establishing that the organisation actually sent the threats.
• There is no established evidence linking the incidents to the Russian state.

Reuters +2

4. Who is investigating?

The investigations involve national police and aviation-security authorities, with an EU aviation-security information-sharing mechanism activated.

My particular interest would be the original threat emails: who received them, whether the wording and email infrastructure were identical, and whether they originated from the same sender or network.

Reuters and the Associated Press have reported some of these details, but the underlying emails have not been comprehensively published.

Sources: Reuters investigation⁠ · Associated Press report⁠ · Guardian investigation⁠.

What is the possible motive?

ChatGPT:

There are several possible motives beyond simply frightening passengers and the public. In fact, if the threats are coordinated across multiple airlines and countries, creating fear may be the immediate effect rather than the ultimate objective.

I would consider several possibilities, without assuming that any one is established.

1. Testing Europe’s security response

This is one of the more interesting possibilities.

A perpetrator could be testing:

• How quickly airlines communicate with national authorities.
• How different countries share intelligence.
• How readily fighter aircraft are scrambled.
• Whether airports close runways or divert aircraft.
• How consistently different governments respond to identical warnings.

This could provide intelligence about Europe’s crisis-response systems without anyone having to carry out an actual bombing.

The Associated Press has specifically identified testing the speed and consistency of international coordination as a possible motive. AP News +1

2. Creating economic disruption

A relatively cheap campaign could impose substantial costs:

• Airline fuel and diversion expenses.
• Cancelled flights and missed connections.
• Airport disruption.
• Lost tourism and business confidence.
• Additional military and police expenditure.

This is particularly interesting because the perpetrators don’t need explosives. They exploit the fact that aviation authorities cannot afford to ignore a credible bomb warning.

3. Undermining confidence in European governments

Repeated incidents could create the impression that European governments cannot protect essential infrastructure.

This could be intended to:

• Undermine public confidence in national governments.
• Make European citizens feel vulnerable.
• Increase pressure on governments to divert resources to domestic security.
• Create political disagreements over how to respond.

4. Disrupting European solidarity over Ukraine

This is where the hybrid-warfare hypothesis becomes particularly relevant.

If a state-linked actor were responsible, the objective might be to impose costs on European countries supporting Ukraine, create political distractions and demonstrate that Europe is vulnerable to relatively inexpensive forms of disruption.

Russia has previously been accused by European governments of conducting sabotage and other hybrid operations. But there is currently no publicly established Russian connection to these particular threats. Internazionale +1

5. Provoking an excessive security response

There is another possibility: deliberately encouraging governments to overreact.

For example:

• More intrusive airport security.
• Restrictions on travel.
• Increased surveillance.
• Public disagreements between governments.
• Unnecessary military deployments.

A campaign could then portray European governments as either incompetent or authoritarian.

6. Creating a distraction

A more strategic possibility is that the threats are intended to divert police, intelligence and military resources away from something else.

For example, a campaign of false alarms could:

• Occupy counterterrorism investigators.
• Force security resources to concentrate on airports.
• Distract from cyberattacks, sabotage or other operations.
• Create confusion during a period of heightened political tension.

This is speculative, but it is a recognised consideration in assessing coordinated disruption campaigns.

What I find particularly significant

There are three things worth investigating:

• The scale: Reuters reported nearly 30 flights affected on Thursday alone.
• The apparent coordination: threats were received across several countries, with unusual timing and similarities.
• The targets: aviation is critical infrastructure, and the response is predictable: every threat has to be taken seriously.

Reuters also reports a further wave on Friday, 6 November. Spain’s foreign minister has described the situation as potentially involving hybrid aggression and psychological warfare. Investing.com +1

My assessment is that the most interesting hypothesis is not simply psychological warfare. It is a low-cost operation designed to test, expose and exploit weaknesses in European infrastructure and cross-border security coordination.

But I would not yet attribute it to Russia, Iran or any other state.

—-/