EU alert at Russia's use of migration 'weapon'
The threat of Russia and Belarus intensifying hybrid tactics — including sending migrants over borders into the EU — is a 'serious concern', the EU border agency has said.
Frontex said these countries had already used migrants as a 'geopolitical weapon' and warned Russia would continue to exploit this power to 'exert pressure' on the EU.
'The situation on the EU's eastern borders remains volatile due to Russia's ongoing war of aggression on Ukraine," the agency said.
The flow of migrants across the Eastern borders is influenced by strategic decisions made by Moscow and Minsk to instrumentalise migration to put pressure on EU border management.
'As the situation in Ukraine evolves and as the EU takes greater responsibility in supporting Ukraine, Russia may be incentivised to extend hybrid operations against member states to influence internal politics and foreign policy decisions.'
Frontex's Annual Risk Analysis 2025/2026 said Israel's war in Gaza, along with fragmented security in Lebanon and Syria 'could drive' further displacement and increase migration pressure on Europe.
It said armed conflicts and worsening economic conditions in northern African and the Sahel were sources of migration, but added there was 'particular concern' at Russia's growing influence in the region, including a military base in Eastern Libya.
'This presence raises fears that migration flows across the Mediterranean could be instrumentalised to put further pressure on the EU,' it said.
The analysis said changes to US migration policy could increase pressure on European air borders by 'directing migratory flows of Venezuelan, Colombian and Cuban nationals', as well as non-Latin American migrants towards the EU.
The report highlights other related issues:
As migration from conflict zones increases, the risk grows of criminals, terrorists, saboteurs and intelligence operatives 'infiltrating' migration routes;
Organised crime poses a 'persistent threat' to the EU's external borders, including gangs trafficking drugs and firearms;
Document fraud is a 'primary' enabler of irregular entry at EU airports and criminal gangs provide 'sophisticated forged documents' and countries need advanced technologies
On this point, the report said: 'Fraudulently obtained visas, imposters — individuals using another person's migrants claim to be from conflict-affected regions to facilitate asylum claims, are persistent tactics.'
The report added: 'A growing area of concern is the potential infiltration into irregular migrant flows of mercenaries or war veterans with advanced combat capabilities. These individuals pose an elevated security risk, particularly if integrated into organised crime networks.'
Frontex said hybrid threats originating from Russia's proxies and Belarus would remain 'a consistent and evolving' challenge.
'These threats may escalate in response to geopolitical shifts, including a potential ceasefire agreement or changes in EU-Ukraine relations,' it said.
'Threat tactics are expected to include direct provocations against EU border personnel, sabotage of border infrastructure, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining EU cohesion and public confidence.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Can belated economic sanity save the US from a Liz Truss-style fiasco?
The US approach to trade restrictions is a roller coaster. The tactic so far has been to announce a big increase in tariffs on its trading partners, then some degree of rowing back pending negotiations, then some new threats if negotiations aren't going fully the US's way. Now the US courts have intervened to at least delay proposed tariffs. It's not clear where all this will land. China confronted US tariffs that escalated to more than 100 per cent with its own countermeasures. Then negotiations opened and there has, for now, been significant rowing back . Alongside higher tariffs on steel and cars, the opening salvo against the EU was for 20 per cent tariffs, scaled back to 10 per cent while negotiations opened. The latest threat from the Trump administration is for 50 per cent tariffs on imports from the EU , unless agreement on a trade deal is reached by midsummer. Trade deals are complex and the window for reaching a deal is very short. The short-term effects of these threats are destabilising, both for exporters to the US and for US producers relying on imported inputs. READ MORE The objective of the US administration is, presumably, to see US production replace imported goods. However, unless US firms have spare capacity to replace imports, they need to build such capability. [ EU-US tariff talks: What happens next? Opens in new window ] No sane US firm will invest in new factories until it is clear what the final outcome will be from the negotiations with different big trading partners. In many cases, it could take years to bring such investments on stream – possibly only after the next US presidential election. If Trump's successor were to pursue a different trade policy, import-replacing investment might struggle to make money. The Republic of Ireland exported more than €50 billion of pharmaceuticals to the US last year. New US pharma capacity would be needed to replace imports from Ireland. Firms are unlikely to decide to invest in new factories in the US until they know what the final trade landscape will be. Then, if new plants are built, they will need regulatory approval to produce the relevant drugs in the United States, likely also taking years. Thus, it could take considerable time before pharmaceutical production could switch from Ireland to the US. How to manage your pension in these volatile times Listen | 37:00 Recent studies by the EU Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have looked at the possible effect of the US-initiated trade war on the EU and the US economies. The studies suggest that the trade war is likely to be particularly damaging for the US, with a much more muted impact on the EU. That is because the tariffs will raise the cost of US imports for US consumers and producers. In turn, this will lead to higher inflation, which could require the US central bank, the Fed, to raise interest rates, slowing the economy further. The EU research suggests that the unilateral imposition of tariffs by the US, just through their effects on trade, would reduce US national income by 1 per cent next year, while the impact on the EU would only be 0.2 per cent. Retaliatory action by the EU and others would raise the United States' loss to 1.5 per cent. The EU analysis also indicates that the US costs would be magnified by any increase in interest rates needed to choke off inflation. If the Fed were to raise rates to counter rising inflation, this could provoke a Trump response, overturning the Fed's vital independent role in setting interest rates. If this were to happen, the loss of faith in US economic policy would be likely to have even more serious consequences. However, the United States faces a further problem. US government debt is 120 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), back to where it was in 1945 after the second World War. In the OECD, only the Greek, Italian and Japanese governments are more indebted. Nevertheless, the Trump administration plans to implement big tax cuts for the coming years. While serious cuts in expenditure, affecting social and health services, are also promised, the net effect will still mean borrowing of 6 per cent to 7 per cent of GDP each year, adding rapidly to the already high debt burden. The lesson we learned from the fiscal crisis in the 1980s, and again 15 years ago in the financial crash, is that if your national debt goes above 100 per cent of national income, you face big challenges borrowing at reasonable rates. Current US policy raises the possibility of a Liz Truss type event , where government interest rates rise significantly due to the prospect of an ever-increasing government debt burden. Hopefully, before this happens, sanity will prevail in US economic policy.
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
It's in Europe's interest to put sanctions on Israel
Europe's patience with Binyamin Netanyahu 's war in Gaza and Israeli settlers' aggression in the occupied West Bank may finally be running out. In the past few weeks, EU foreign ministers have triggered a review of Israel's association agreement with the bloc, Britain has halted trade talks, Norway's sovereign wealth fund blacklisted an Israeli company for facilitating energy deliveries to West Bank settlements, and the leaders of France, the UK and Canada threatened to put sanctions on the country. Even Germany, Israel's most stalwart backer in Europe, is criticising the country's conduct. Too little too late, some will say. And they will point to how fast the West imposed sanctions on Russia, in meaningful and unprecedented ways, after Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine , and put the difference down to hypocrisy. READ MORE No doubt the West has treated Russia and Israel differently, and hypocrisy is part of it. But an analogy to the war in Ukraine is also misguided. Russia never faced a campaign against its very existence, nor a heinous attack by Ukraine the way Israel did at the hands of Hamas. But this simple comparison misses the point. It is possible – indeed sensible – to think Israel is entitled to wage war against Hamas in Gaza, while insisting that it may only do so in lawful ways and concluding that these lawful limits have long since been transgressed. The UN has found overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and in connection with the increasingly brutal occupation of the West Bank. There is no need, in other words, to deem the two wars in any way equivalent to judge that sanctions may be justified in both. And that is why it is time for Europe to clarify specifically how it might place sanctions on Israel, and to develop its ad-hoc sanctions decisions into a systematic policy framework for how to use this geoeconomic tool generally. On the specifics, it is obvious that if European countries opt for sanctions, they will have to do so without the US. So the time is right to map out the areas where sanctions on Israel by Europe alone (or with any other willing allies) would have the most impact. Banking and financial sanctions are mostly likely to be ineffective, as the US can easily duplicate any payment and funding channels. There is one exception: immobilising foreign exchange reserves, as the West has done with Russia, would impose an economic cost. The Bank of Israel invests about a quarter of its relatively large stock of reserves in Europe, which a freeze would make unavailable for their financial stabilisation function and could in time be put towards any compensation due to Palestinians. The hardest-hitting sanctions would probably be on trade and travel. Israel sources nearly half of its goods imports from Europe and sends more than a third of its exports to the continent, according to its statistics bureau. A significant share of the imports consists of fuels, a trade Europe has outsize influence over due to its dominance of shipping-related services. At least a quarter of Israel's large services trade is also with European markets. Restrictions on business services and tourism would be highly disruptive. Preparing for sanctions is important beyond the immediate moral and political imperative of reacting to violations of international law. The EU, in particular, needs to upgrade sanctions decision-making. Its strong measures against Russia have happened despite political squabbles and claims of legal uncertainty. These shortcomings, even though they have been repeatedly overcome against Moscow, will continue to hamper the union's ability to project diplomatic power. The EU needs to clarify and systematise which behaviours will trigger which reactions, and ideally remove decisions regarding sanctions from the current unanimity requirement, which undermines its foreign policy leverage. Preparations are also needed to counter any US sabotage, which is already under way with Washington's debilitating moves against the International Criminal Court . By showing it is ready to act against Israel if it so chooses, the EU would show it is ready to act against grave breaches of international law by anyone. Legal consistency would make threats of sanctions more credible; incentives to respect European red lines would strengthen them and signal consequences for crossing them. It was a US president who advised speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Today, it is the EU that can make most of his advice. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Examiner
12 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
EU drug report warns of rising cocaine use and synthetic drug threats across Europe
Record quantities of cocaine have been seized in Europe for the seventh year in a row, the EU's drug agency has said. The EUDA said while cocaine cartels typically use commercial containers to ship multi-tonne consignments, they also employ other methods, such as their own cargo ships — and cited the example of the MV Matthew, caught off the Cork coast in September 2023. That vessel was boarded dramatically by elite Army Rangers and 2.25 tonnes of cocaine was seized, in an operation also involving gardaí, customs, the naval service, and the air corps. Gerry Harrahill of Revenue and Customs, Assistant Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly, and Irish Naval Service Commander Tony Geraghty at the Joint Task Force media briefing on September 27, 2023, after the Panamanian-registered MV Matthew was seized with €157m worth of cocaine on board. Picture: Brian Lawless/PA The EU agency said cocaine was the second most common problem drug in the EU for people seeking treatment for the first time, accounting for 26% of all new entrants. However, Irish figures show that the numbers seeking first-time treatment for cocaine was much greater, accounting for 46% of new entrants into treatment in 2023. The EUDA said that, as there was a long time gap between first use and seeking treatment, there could be a 'surge' in treatment demand for cocaine in the coming years. In its European Union Drug Report 2025, the agency also said: Europe is facing an emerging threat from synthetic drugs — including artificial substances that mimic cannabis, heroin and stimulants; High-potency cannabis extracts and edibles such as jellies were of 'particular concern' given hospital admissions and because they were attractive to children; Semi-synthetic cannabinoids such as HHC were found in vapes and gummies and widely available online and in stores in Ireland; Germany, Luxembourg, Malta and Netherlands were allowing for home growing of cannabis, non-profit growing clubs, and cannabis use in private — but the EUDA urged the policies be evaluated to grasp their impact on health and security; The increasing strength of ecstasy posed 'unpredictable health risks' to consumers, with the average MDMA content almost doubling since 2011. This latter trend was highlighted in Ireland last week, when the HSE issued an alert saying that one in four ecstasy tablets tested in 2024 had an average strength about 200mg, twice the typical adult dose. The EUDA report said 419 tonnes of cocaine was seized in 2023, compared to 323 tonnes in 2022 — up 30%. Some 303 tonnes were seized in 2021 and 211 tonnes in 2020, meaning the total almost doubled in three years. European Commissioner for internal affairs Magnus Brunner said: 'The illicit drug trade poses a severe threat to the health and security of our citizens. 'It fosters an environment of intimidation and corruption, undermining the fabric of our communities.'
