Europe's bomb threat wave moves from airports to newsrooms. Who is behind it?

The threat campaign moved beyond airports and directly targeted news organisations. Broadcasters received emails claiming that more attacks on European transport were coming. The shift mattered because it expanded the disruption into public information spaces, while raising fears of panic and coordinated psychological pressure.

Bulgaria’s Nova TV and Ireland’s public broadcaster RTE received messages headed “Message to the West.” RTE evacuated its offices and suspended programming. Britain’s Sky also reported receiving a security threat. The emails used the name “Mikhail Andropov,” but the article gives no proof that this was the sender’s real identity.

Authorities treated the warnings seriously. They conducted evacuations and security checks, while airports continued investigating related threats. It remained unclear whether the newsroom messages came from the same people who disrupted flights. No explosive devices were found, but the campaign intensified concerns about possible hybrid warfare.

The figures show a rapidly spreading disruption rather than one isolated airport incident. Across Tuesday and Thursday, at least 35 flights were diverted or searched, according to figures cited in the reports. Friday brought another wave affecting at least 18 flights. These figures count different stages of the campaign, not one single total.

Around six flights were disrupted on Tuesday, and more than two dozen had been affected by Thursday. On Friday, at least nine flights to and from Prague were affected. Four flights were affected over France, two were heading towards Sofia, and a Lisbon-to-Rome service was also involved. A Wizz Air flight from Prague to Rome was diverted to Venice.

The overall effect on air travel was smaller on Friday despite the number of warnings. Some flights were searched or diverted, and others were escorted by military aircraft. No explosive devices were found, but authorities treated the threats as genuine until checks were completed.

The campaign’s most important mystery is its source. The newsroom emails were attributed to someone using the name “Mikhail Andropov,” but there was no independent confirmation that this was the sender’s real identity. European officials have not publicly blamed any government or organisation.

The article also separates attribution from connection. It was not immediately clear who sent the newsroom messages, where they originated, or whether the same person or group sent the earlier airport threats. The wording claimed responsibility for the wider wave, but that claim itself was not independently verified. Reuters could not establish who sent the emails.

That uncertainty limits official conclusions. The incidents fit a broader pattern of suspected disruption in Europe, and officials are examining possible hybrid warfare. Germany directly blamed Russia for a drone attack on Leipzig airport, but Russia denied involvement in the broader campaign. The article does not link Russia to these bomb threats.

The article describes hybrid warfare as disruptive operations designed to unsettle countries without crossing into conventional war. Such operations can interfere with infrastructure, public services and daily life. They may create effects similar to an attack while avoiding a direct military confrontation.

False bomb threats can work through fear and forced response. A warning may cause flights to be searched or diverted, passengers to face delays, and newsrooms to evacuate. The threat itself becomes the mechanism of disruption. Even when no device exists, authorities must act as though danger may be real until checks are complete.

European officials are examining whether this campaign belongs to that wider pattern. The article links their concern to suspected sabotage and disruption involving electricity infrastructure, defence-related facilities, airports, computer systems and civilian services. It does not identify the bomb-threat perpetrators. Spain’s foreign minister called the broader situation “hybrid aggression” and “a form of psychological warfare.”

When authorities treat a bomb threat as genuine, normal operations stop while they test whether danger exists. Airports may search or divert aircraft, and passengers can face long delays and uncertainty. Newsrooms may evacuate staff and suspend programming. These precautions protect people, but they also spread the disruption created by the warning.

The article gives several examples. A Wizz Air flight from Prague to Rome was diverted to Venice. Some aircraft were searched, while others were escorted by military planes. RTE evacuated its offices and suspended programming. Hungarian fighter jets escorted civilian flights through Hungarian airspace after three scrambles, while NATO ordered air patrols in the region.

Police, airport authorities, airlines, military forces and broadcasters all become involved. Copenhagen police investigated a reported threat, although airport operations continued normally. The article records no explosive devices. Even so, authorities completed checks before treating the warnings as harmless, showing why a false threat can produce real operational costs.

Repeated false threats create pressure because authorities cannot safely dismiss every warning in advance. Each message can force searches, evacuations or diversions before investigators know whether a device exists. The absence of explosives does not erase the delays, costs and fear caused by the response.

The campaign affected passengers, airlines, airports and broadcasters across several countries. Flights were diverted or searched, passengers faced uncertainty, and RTE evacuated its offices and suspended programming. Military aircraft escorted civilian airliners, while police and airport authorities investigated warnings. These visible responses can make the disruption feel larger and more threatening.

Politically, the pattern raises questions about national security and possible foreign involvement. European officials are considering whether the incidents form part of hybrid warfare or psychological disruption. Yet the article gives no confirmed perpetrator and no proof that a government directed the threats. That uncertainty itself sustains pressure, because officials must respond while attribution remains unresolved.

When the perpetrator is unknown, governments can still respond to the immediate danger. They investigate messages, conduct security checks, search or divert aircraft, and monitor affected sites. The article shows this process without claiming that authorities have solved the wider case. Officials also examine whether separate incidents form a broader pattern.

Copenhagen police investigated a reported airport threat, while airport authorities said operations continued normally. Other warnings led to flight searches and diversions. Hungary scrambled fighter jets three times to escort civilian aircraft, and Hungary’s defence minister said NATO had ordered air patrols in the region. These measures addressed risk without proving who sent the messages.

Officials have not publicly attributed the bomb threats to a government or organisation. They are examining possible hybrid operations against infrastructure and civilian services. Germany blamed Russia for a separate drone attack on Leipzig airport, while Russia denied broader involvement. The article’s immediate outlook is continued investigation and vigilance, not a confirmed explanation.