what? they were local anarchist. what the hell are you saying?

Anyone can fly a quadcopter though? You can buy one right now for a couple hundred bucks off Amazon (and strap explosives to it if you wanted to).

If anything, the fact we’re not seeing random drones carrying explosives and diving into groups of people on a daily basis shows the vast, vast (99.999%) of people is actually well-meaning and has no desire to kill or hurt anyone.

No, Russia is the prime (if not only) candidate.

Why? They've been developing a system of "single-use agents" to overwhelm European governments and keep them on their back foot.

This is likely a test run.

A lovely article on this was recently published in The New Yorker that you may enjoy: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/09/to-build-a-fir....

After 6 weeks in Taiwan, one thing became very evident, mainland China can take the island in 3 days without firing a single shot. The only thing that can stop mainland China taking from taking Taiwan is a US president like Bill Clinton who had the courage to put two United States aircraft carrier strike forces between the mainland and the island to defend democracy which gave us TMSC. I don't see the current snowflake leadership doing that. While I was there, mainland China told the people of Taiwan to shut their mouths and nobody said a word about China after.

The reason mainland China hasn't taken Taiwan is because they don't have to.

I do not like the government of China, however, they are building infrastructure around the world especially in Africa, Asia, and South America. They are not destroying things like Russia does every single day. Their approach to diplomacy now is building.

For the same reason, China isn't commit terrorist attacks on other countries. However, Russia is committing terrorist attacks on other countries so it easy to believe that they are responsible for terrorist attacks.

> Why not China, for instance?

A couple reasons:

1. China's not particularly known to conduct this sort of activity this far from their mainland.

2. What would be their motive? China is actively trying to fill that "superpower" void being left in Europe by President Trump's unpredictable behavior.

> Or a random terrorist group?

Plausible.

> Speculation is fun but it's important to actually make statements grounded in reality.

I look at it from the standpoint of motive and history. See "GRU Unit 29155"[1]. Russia has both. Russia is on the brink of war with Europe.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU_Unit_29155#Activities

> Why not China, for instance

In this specific case, becuase China has historically had significant FDI within Italy's infrastructure sector.

China has significant issues with the EU and is aligned with Russia, but it isn't in China's incentive to conduct violent actions outside of the Chinese diaspora within Europe (which is a separate sticking point).

What about USA.

NATO could certainly rollover the Russian army in a conventional war, but that was just as true before the Ukrainian war. The idea that Russia is/was a serious threat is a convenient fiction: It helps maintain Russia's image as a superpower, and it provides a justification for the existence of NATO and the associated military industrial complex that supports it.

What is true however, is that Russia does possess a huge arsenal of nuclear and other weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_des...

Despite Putin's posturing, Russia's never going to risk deploying them in a conflict with Ukraine. But in an actual war between NATO/Europe and Russia, with the regime facing an existential threat, then there's a very good chance they would. But even before it got to that point, the nature of the conflict itself would make nuclear escalation very likely. Both sides would be firing huge numbers of missiles, attempting to gain air superiority by wiping out the other's own missile launchers, radar bases, etc. With that many missiles flying, and stressed people and automated systems making split-second decisions, it's very likely that an error or miscalculation would result in an accidental nuclear strike, at which point it would be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

will you go to the frontline?

Our railways don't need sabotage - trains fail to run anyway.

Excellent! Thank you. Both these processes make more sense than the TDR scheme I was referring to.

With the fiber scheme they are using optical TDR.

You can even use fiber-optic cables running in cable throughs next to the tracks to detect and track trains: https://www.dbsystel.de/dbsystel-en/Digital-Stories-en/A-dig...

Devil’s advocate: you should still have a reason to do the bad thing in the first place. I’m not a good enough politician to understand how this benefits anyone’s interests (don’t get me wrong, I do suspect Russia to be behind this, but still don’t get the objective - but then again I don’t get the objective of their special bullshit operation either)