FROM THE BBC

We have verified photos of a damaged drone in a Polish field which have been circulating on social media channels this morning.

They were captured on the outskirts of Czosnówka - a village in Poland’s eastern Lublin province. Two of the photos have been posted on Facebook by a Polish politician.

The rural setting made finding the location of the pictures challenging. However, we were able to confirm the spot by matching the railway line, pylons and greenery to a separate verified video as well as street-level imagery. 

The video we verified shows Polish police at the same scene parked in a road alongside this field where a red temporary barrier had been set up to shield what we assume to be the drone.

We’ve checked for earlier copies of this material and confirmed it was first shared online this morning.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2enwk1l9e1t

 

THE DRONE IN THE PICTURE ISN'T A RUSSIAN DRONE....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

The consultation process and Article 4

 

Under Article 4 of NATO’s founding treaty, member countries can bring an issue to the attention of the North Atlantic Council (often simply called “the Council” or “the NAC” – NATO’s principal political decision-making body) and discuss it with Allies. The article states:

“The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”

Any member country can formally invoke Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. As soon as it is invoked, the issue is discussed and can potentially lead to some form of joint decision or action on behalf of the Alliance. Whatever the scenario, fellow members sitting around the Council table are encouraged to react to a situation brought to their attention by a member country.

Since the Alliance’s creation in 1949, Article 4 has been invoked seven times:

1. On 10 February 2003, Türkiye formally invoked Article 4, asking for consultations in the NAC on defensive assistance from NATO in the event of a threat to its population or territory resulting from armed conflict in neighbouring Iraq. NATO agreed a package of defensive measures and conducted Operation Display Deterrence from the end of February to early May 2003.
2. On 22 June 2012, Türkiye requested a NAC meeting under Article 4 after one of its fighter jets was shot down by Syrian air defence forces.
3. On 3 October 2012, Türkiye requested Article 4 NAC consultations when five Turkish civilians were killed by Syrian shells. Following these incidents, on 21 November 2012, Türkiye requested the deployment of Patriot missiles. NATO agreed to this defensive measure to help Türkiye defend its population and territory, and to help de-escalate the crisis along the border.
4. On 3 March 2014, Poland invoked Article 4 following increasing tensions in neighbouring Ukraine, as a result of Russia’s aggressive actions.
5. On 26 July 2015, Türkiye requested that the NAC convene in view of the seriousness of the situation following terrorist attacks, and to inform Allies of the measures it was taking.
6. On 28 February 2020, Türkiye requested consultations following the death of Turkish soldiers in air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer Russia in Idlib province.
7. On 24 February 2022, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia requested to hold consultations under Article 4 following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The political dimension of NATO

Encouraging members of an inter-governmental organisation who have not given up their right of free and independent judgment in international affairs to consult more systematically on an issue is a challenge – be it today or in the 1950s.

In the early 1950s, the NAC recognised NATO’s consultative deficiency on international issues and recommended that measures be taken to improve the process. In April 1954, a resolution on political consultation was adopted:

“... all member governments should bear constantly in mind the desirability of bringing to the attention of the Council information on international political developments whenever they are of concern to other members of the Council or to the Organization as a whole; and (...) the Council in permanent session should from time to time consider what specific subject might be suitable for political consultation at one of its subsequent meetings when its members should be in a position to express the views of their governments on the subject.” (C-M(54)38)

The resolution, which was put forward by Canada and immediately approved, provoked nonetheless a reaction from the American representative:

“Mr. Dulles (United States) supported the Canadian resolution on the understanding that consultation would be limited within the bounds of common sense. Countries like his own with world-wide interests might find it difficult to consult other NATO governments in every case. For a sudden emergency, it was more important to take action than to discuss the emergency. In other words, consultation should be regarded as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.” (C-R(54)18)

The reservations made by the United States, which no doubt were shared by other member countries, could still be voiced today. Building on this resolution, on 8 March 1956, the then Secretary General of NATO, Lord Ismay, made a statement that widened the debate by explaining the consequences of systemising political consultation within the Alliance:

“A direct method of bringing home to public opinion the importance of the habit of political consultation within NATO may be summed up in the proposition “NATO is a political as well as a military alliance”. The habitual use of this phraseology would be preferable to the current tendency to refer to NATO as a (purely) military alliance. It is also more accurate. To refer to NATO as a political alliance in no sense denies, depreciates or deprecates the fact that the alliance is also military.” (C-M(56)25-1956)

The same year, the “Three Wise Men” produced their report, which inter alia sought to improve consultation within the Alliance on issues of common concern (Report of the Committee of Three on Non-Military Cooperation in NATO). However, ironically, it was published as the Suez crisis emerged. This crisis severely divided the leading founding members of the Organization (France, the United Kingdom and the United States). The Suez crisis acted as a catalyst for NATO, leading it to put into practice something it knew was of vital importance for the unity and solidarity of the Alliance – political consultation.

“Animus in consulendo liber”

When NATO moved to its headquarters at the Porte Dauphine in Paris, in December 1959, the then Secretary General, M. Paul-Henri Spaak, enlisted the help of the Dean of the Council (the longest-serving national ambassador to NATO) in finding a suitable Latin maxim which would capture the spirit of consultation between Allies, to which he attached so much importance. The Dean, Belgian Ambassador André de Staercke, recalled a visit he had made to the Tuscan town of San Gimignano. There, in the Palazzo del Podestà, engraved on the back of the seat reserved for the man who presided over the destinies of the city, he had seen the motto: Animus in consulendo liber.

It seems that an entirely satisfactory translation of the phrase cannot be found, although a French version “l’esprit libre dans la consultation” comes close. Renderings in English have ranged from the cryptic “in discussion a free mind” to the more complex “Man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel”.

The motto adorned the conference area at the Porte de Dauphine for several years and, in 1967, was moved to NATO’s home in Brussels, where it graced the wall of the Council room, as it does now in the current headquarters (constructed across the road from the previous headquarters in Brussels).

 

Setting up a consultation system

As explained above, consultation and consensus were accepted as the basis for all NATO decisions when the Alliance was created in 1949.

However, it was only gradually that NATO set up a consultation system. In broad terms, this was done in three stages:

• 1949-1952: at the signing of the Treaty, NATO introduced the consultation process as a key principle in its working mechanisms. This was reinforced at the Lisbon Conference (1952), where the contours of today’s NATO were put into place: the NAC was made permanent and the position of Secretary General was created, together with an international staff that would support Council decisions on a permanent basis;
• 1952-1956: between 1952 and the publishing of the Committee of Three report on non-military cooperation, attempts had been made to encourage political consultation beyond the geographical limitations defined in the founding treaty, i.e. beyond the defined NATO area.
• From 1956: the principles of the Report of the Committee of Three were further developed and implemented. The Committee recommended measures in the area of political cooperation with regard to foreign policies, the peaceful settlement of inter-member disputes, economic cooperation, scientific and technical cooperation, cultural cooperation and cooperation in the information field.

The Committee of Three left a lasting legacy by encouraging NATO members to reconcile differences within the Organization through productive consultation on matters of common concern, including issues outside the defined NATO area. The Suez crisis provided a first-hand example of why close political consultation and non-military cooperation are necessary.

 

The fora for political consultation

The principal forum for political consultation is the North Atlantic Council. The NAC is NATO’s principal political decision-making committee. The Secretary General, as the chair of the NAC, plays an essential part in this process. Consultation also takes place on a regular basis in other fora, including NATO committees and working groups. All of these bodies derive their authority from the Council.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49187.htm?os=fuzzscan0XXtr&ref=app

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE POSTED ON THE ABC IS A DISGRACE... IT IS NOT JOURNALISM. IT IS OPINION-INANITY-ISM....

 

Poland drone attack shows Putin has no peace plans any time soon

By Riley Stuart in London

 

If you thought a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine was within reach — as Donald Trump has suggested — let the events in Poland this week be a wake-up call: it's not.

The fact that 19 military drones launched from Russia ended up in Polish airspace on Wednesday morning added an exclamation point to another week of escalating Kremlin aggression.

As is often the case when Moscow is involved, the details leading up to this incident are murky. Perhaps the drones were sent to Poland on purpose. Perhaps they weren't.

But one thing is certain: the episode is at odds with assertions an end to the war may be just around the corner.

In fact, it's a clear sign from Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, that he has no plans to back down anytime soon.

Over the past few days, there have been multiple reminders that whatever pressure — or lack of it — NATO and its allies are trying to apply on the Kremlin isn't working.

On Sunday, for example, Moscow launched its largest-ever aerial attack on Ukraine, unleashing more than 800 drones, as well as a dozen missiles, on its neighbour.

For the first time, a major government office was struck.

Then, on Tuesday, a Russian glide bomb hit a Ukrainian village in the Donetsk region, killing more than 20 people — mostly pensioners.

After all that, early on Wednesday morning, the attack that ended up in Polish airspace took place.

While it's not the first time Russian drones have strayed into another country since Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine — which borders Poland — it is by far the most significant instance.

Russia's defence ministry has subsequently claimed "there had been no plans to target facilities on the territory of Poland".

However, it didn't deny the attack.

Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, said the incident was "an act of aggression".

"We are dealing with a large-scale provocation," he said. "The situation is serious, and no-one doubts that we must prepare for various scenarios."

There has been much talk of ceasefires, peace deals and potential meetings between Trump, Putin and Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in recent weeks, particularly since US and Russian leaders met in Alaska last month.

But analysts warn the Kremlin's actions since then have shown anything but a desire to end the war.

Putin could be feeling NATO out with Poland attack

Critics say European nations, and their allies, aren't doing enough to turn the screws on Russia.

Over the summer, the leaders of France and the United Kingdom, Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, assembled what they called a "coalition of the willing".

It's supposed to provide security guarantees for Ukraine whenever the war ends, and Australia is part of it.

But despite several meetings over the past few months, actual details of what this group plans to do are scarce.

There's evidence to suggest some European states are reluctant to act until they know what the US is going to do.

That could be a dangerous idea.

Since Trump took office in January, there's been absolutely no indication he plans to continue the status quo military and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

If anything, it's been the opposite.

In February, there was his now infamous meeting with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in which Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, lambasted the Ukrainian leader.

While bilateral relations have recovered since then, the US president still sometimes parrots Russian talking points about the "root causes" of the conflict, and has even previously blamed Ukraine for starting the war.

Trump has, occasionally, offered vague criticisms of Putin.

After a massive Russian attack on Kyiv in April, he posted on social media: "Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let's get the Peace Deal DONE!"

Almost a full 24 hours after the attack on Poland, Trump posted on his Truth social platform: "What's with Russia violating Poland's airspace with drones? Here we go!"

He's threatened new sanctions against the Kremlin and nations that continue to trade with it.

But multiple self-imposed deadlines have come and gone with no consequences.

On top of the military aggressions, a look at Putin's public statements from the past week also provides clues as to how far away peace is.

Speaking to reporters in Beijing last week, the Russian leader described his war as being "at its most critical point".

Later, at an event in Vladivostok, Putin lashed out at the idea that Western troops could be sent to Ukraine as part of the security guarantees.

It's something Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said he's considering as part of the coalition of the willing.

"We assume that these will be legitimate targets for destruction," the Russian president said last week.

In August, Trump was picked up on a hot mic in the White House, gushing about his relationship with Putin.

"I think he wants to do a deal for me," the US president confided in Macron, who was visiting with several other European leaders, unaware the world was listening.

The events in Poland this week show that's unlikely to be the case.

At best, Wednesday's drone incursion was a careless military blunder that underscores how emboldened Russia's nuclear-armed war machine has become.

At worst, it represented Putin's next move in expanding his invasion of Ukraine, and a tactic designed to feel out what NATO's response could be to any escalation.

If the alliance's actions to date are anything to go by, it could be underwhelming.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-11/poland-drone-attack-shows-putin-no-peace-plans-any-time-soon/105760108

 

===================

 

ONE CAN BE SURE THAT THE DRONE FEATURED IN THE PICTURE ISN'T A RUSSIAN DRONE... TO A KEEN LEONISKIAN EYE, IT SEEMS THAT IT COULD BE ENGLISH-MADE — AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BY A UKRAINIAN HANDYMAN...

PUTIN WANTS PEACE ON RUSSIAN TERMS. THE EUROPEANS AND YUCKRAINE DO NOT....

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.rt.com/news/624439-ursula-leyen-debunked/