Shortly before Christmas, the new chief of [Secret Intelligence Service ] MI6, Blaise Metreweli, made her first public speech since taking charge. She chose as her subject the multifaceted threat posed by Russia, warning of the growing danger from Vladimir Putin’s regime. “We are operating in a space between peace and war,” she said.
...
The picture Metreweli paints is frightening: a scenario not of overt military strikes, but of covert “grey zone” assaults from every angle. The spy chief did not go into detail. We are all aware of the existence of planned sabotage, assassinations, hacking, cyber crime and drone attacks. Such concepts are well aired and are firmly embedded in the public consciousness. Less familiar, however, according to security experts, is the notion of economic warfare. Key to this, to use their parlance, are non-state actors – not Russian diplomats or entities formally associated with the Russian state, but private individuals, organisations, movements and companies who secretly act in Russia’s interest.
Some are ideologically motivated, while others do it for money, frequently being paid in untraceable cryptocurrency, like Jan Marsalek. Austrian-born Marsalek was COO of Wirecard, the German payment processing firm that collapsed in 2020 after announcing that €1.9bn (£1.65bn) it supposedly held in cash did not in fact exist.
...
For almost a decade prior to its insolvency, Marsalek had been working for the Russian security agency, the GRU. His position at Wirecard gave him access to data and resources that were useful to the Russians. He used his seniority to develop pro-Russian links in Libya, and to encourage a flood of migration to Europe that was calculated to cause social and financial damage – all playing into Moscow’s hands.
After his exposure, following Wirecard’s collapse, Marsalek fled to Russia. In late 2023, Marsalek was named again as the coordinator of a Bulgarian spy ring operating in the UK.
Another example is petty criminal Dylan Earl, the ringleader in an arson attack on a warehouse in east London stocked with aid for Ukraine in March 2024. He was also recruited online by the Russian paramilitary organisation known as the Wagner Group.
...
Harder to crack are the Russians or non-Russians working in the commercial field, in strategic industries critical to Europe’s defence and infrastructure, such as defence and energy, and acting in Russia’s interests, often under orders from the GRU or other Kremlin agencies. Security sources maintain that Moscow considers these actors useful as there is a degree of separation: deniability is fundamental to the strategy.
...
The difficulty of tracking such activity can be seen in the case of Alexander Kirzhnev. The Russian is wanted by the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court in Ukraine, having been accused in absentia of organising a fraud against Ukraine by using a bogus US company to fulfil an order for ammunition.
The Ukraine state-owned firm Artem placed a multimillion-dollar order for 152mm and 155mm shells with a supplier based in Florida. Advance payment was made. All seemed well: a US firm was helping Ukraine’s war effort, no problem there. The trouble was, the Florida company had no ability to fulfil the order.
By diverting precious Ukrainian cash, taking up their time and effort, and making them think much-needed military supplies were coming when they were not, Kirzhnev’s alleged actions – whether under instruction or not – epitomise Russia’s goals in the “grey zone”: deniable private-sector activity that moves the Kremlin closer to its strategic objectives, sowing uncertainty along the way.
...
Misinformed take. Lukashenko is known to have channeled migrants through Belarus to Central and Western Europe, on russia's behalf, with the deliberate goal of destabilizing Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93European_Union_border_crisis
And it's working. How many right-wing populist nutjobs have used the crisis to gain traction for their pro-russia parties?
Many people in Europe, even on the left, acknowledge that an uncontrolled influx of migrants is having a range of detrimental effects. The difference is some people want sensible solutions, and others want to paint with a broad brush while making rabid accusations.
It's entirely possible to still support refugees while also stymying the flow of a hostile power's weaponization of displaced people. Dismissing the problem altogether doesn't do anything but help reactionaries who paint themselves as the only ones willing to address the issue.
I couldn't find a number for the refugees in the article. How many are approaching the border? I don't doubt Russian influence but the magnitude.
More than a million refugees came from Syria to Germany. If several thousand have crossed the border in the east then that's not causing mentionable social and financial damage. Instead mentioning 'social damage' from Libyan refugees is almost open racism.
Tens of thousands is not an insignificant number.
Also, you're the only one who mentioned Libya, besides in the article where it talks about a russian actor creating problems there.
If you think only racists can acknowledge the social damage inflicted by unchecked migration, then what do you have to say about the effect it has on housing and job markets?
So many people in Europe are unable to find available housing, or unable to afford what's available. You think millions of unauthorized entries doesn't have anything to do with that? Also, how can a party that supports the working class be okay with an influx of huge amounts of cheap labor undercutting local jobseekers? You think that doesn't have an effect on available wages?
And that's ignoring the amount of drugs pouring in from Belarus along with each wave of migrants. Lukashenko literally said he would flood western europe with drugs and migrants.
No. My issue is that "tens of thousands of unauthorized border crossing attempts", of which many could have been sent back immediately, doesn't make a dent when there are more than a million.
How are the migrants directly related to drugs? Do they carry it on their body?
If 95% of the migrants coming in are peaceful, law-abiding, and make a genuine effort to integrate, and 5% are being paid/funded and directed by a hostile adversary, then yes those tens of thousands can absolutely make a difference.
If you're trying to draw an equivalence between migrants channeled by Belarus, and migrants who came by other means/routes, then you're not doing the favor to the other migrants that you think you are.
I don't know the exact sources and supply chains, but Lukashenko made it quite clear that those are part of the same effort, and it's not too hard to imagine they Belarusians are forcing migrants to smuggle drugs along the way. I'm fairly certain that's even mentioned in the wikipedia article, and you can check the references if you want to be sure.
Or you could go to Berlin and simply notice that nearly everyone who offers you drugs is Middle Eastern.
I'm not saying every migrant carries drugs, but for you to pretend there's no relation is just disingenuous.
Only if 100% of the million other immigrants were law-abiding.
Why?
I can't. The probability of losing the drugs is too high.
Are those from Belarus? Otherwise the migrants from Belarus are not as much a problem as they are presented.
I don't. It's just not relevant enough.
Okay dude, you're trying really hard to obfuscate russia's hybrid war, so I'm gonna stop wasting my time on you
There is a hybrid war, but don't let the propaganda get a hold on you. If you believe everything, without checking for plausibility, your willingness to do good can be abused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople
Only I checked for plausibility, and it was there. You're dismissing it as not reaching your threshold of plausibility. I find your threshold to be unreasonably high, but that doesn't mean I'm being overly credulous.
Why are these migrants leaving their countries I wonder.
Aside from political instability and endemic violence, poverty, and lack of social mobility; there's also climate change to blame for making equatorial regions increasingly inhospitable and/or uninhabitable...
Often it's the long tail of colonialism in the form of ethnic disputes and displacement, disenfranchisement, or more modern geopolitics. Sometimes it is just plain remote control capitalism that has kept a region poor for low wages. Simple imperialism exists still, too. All of that leaves its natural offspring, corruption, and war.
It's a bit more complicated than that. It's tempting to fixate on a simplification with one culprit to blame, but causality is rarely linear.
For instance, many Syrian refugees were fleeing Assad's brutal regime before it was toppled; Assad was being propped up by Iran. Afghan refugees were fleeing the Taliban. And while yes, there are historical factors that contributed to Assad, Khameni, and the Taliban being in power, and the West certainly doesn't have squeaky clean hands in those historical factors, it's not entirely the West's fault, either.
If you want to trace the origins of conflict back to the beginning, there's always one step further that you need to take in order to understand the set of circumstances that contributed to the particular tensions at play that gave rise to each conflict throughout history. Ultimately, there's been conflict in the region (and arguably all regions) since the dawn of civilization, and likely earlier too.
That's not a justification for colonialism, but let's not act like we would have world peace if only Europeans had decided to stay in Europe. A lot (not all) of what we call European colonialism in the Middle East began at the conclusion of WWI. There was no longer an Ottoman Empire, and after nearly five centuries of stability the region was suddenly thrust into a period of change and the potential for chaos. The victors had the responsibility to oversee a transition to a new system of governance. A lot of the results were less than ideal, but hindsight is 20/20. We can't say we would have made better decisions if we were in their shoes, limited to the knowledge that they had available to them at the time. Anyway, it's not like the Ottomans had been some egalitarian society that respected all people equally; even they had clearly defined hierarchies that were based on race and religion.
Most of the post-WWII involvement of the west in the Middle East was to combat the influence of the Soviet Union, which wouldn't have been any better. If Europe and the US had simply pulled out of the region, there would still have been a major colonialist/imperialist power in the Middle East, destabilizing civilizations and propping up puppet governments, perpetuating cycles of conflict and fueling the rise of armed militant groups, all resulting in mass displacements of people.
All in all, ethnic disputes have existed since the beginning of time, and while European colonialism may have exacerbated certain of these by placing their thumb on the scales for a period of time before suddenly removing it, let's not pretend it would all be sunshine and rainbows if they hadn't, either.
That doesn't justify conflict by any means. We should all strive for a world in which we can put away the conflicts of the past and move forward in an age of peace and cooperation. This herculean task would require us to have a comprehensive understanding of the origins of each conflict in the first place, and almost all of them go much further back than a cursory glance at 20th century history can reveal.
So I think it's also important to focus on the progress that societies have made, and acknowledge their contributions to the peace process as well.
Is the USSR a colonial power? At least the intention for spreading Socialism should be the opposite. Would the USSR extract resources in the same way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
That would be the best interpretation. It's more likely that it was done with regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics,
Ask the Baltics.
While this is a fine and much more detailed response, I don’t appreciate you mischaracterizing my comment as fixated on a simplification with one culprit, when I explicitly provide 4 or 5 examples of causes, use modifiers like often and sometimes, and don’t specifically mention a region or group of migrants, as it is obviously a generalized introduction to the issue.
So much more exposition than comprehension or engagement. Carries the whiff of overeagerness to establish an agenda.
Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your original comment as pinning it on the West. There are so many tankies out there who act like everything is the West's fault and that the West is the only power who ever has or ever would colonize anyone.
That's what I meant by simplification, but if that wasn't what you meant then I apologize