That ‘tourist' in the forest might be a Russian spy, Latvia warns
MIDD offered advice on how to identify possible reconnaissance and sabotage operatives.It also warned that Russian saboteurs might also attempt to incite unrest or assassinate 'socially significant individuals'WARSAW: They might look like lost tourists — unkempt and overloaded with gear — or hikers with military haircuts, survival gear and no clue how to behave in the woods.But Latvia's intelligence agency said Wednesday that they might actually be Russian saboteurs and spies.In its annual report, Latvia's Defense Intelligence and Security Service, known by Latvian acronym MIDD, offered advice on how to identify possible reconnaissance and sabotage operatives.It's an increasingly relevant concern given regional tensions and a string of arson and other acts of sabotage, which Western governments blame on Russia — allegations that Moscow has repeatedly denied.The list of telltale signs is striking: slovenly appearance, mismatched military or sportswear, and a knack for asking locals suspicious questions. According to the security service, such groups may linger near military or critical infrastructure sites, pose as humanitarian workers or stay in remote areas without showing any interest in nature.Some may carry specialized medical kits, maps or radios — items better suited for clandestine operations than camping trips.The Latvian guidance comes as countries across the region, including new NATO members Sweden and Finland, have been issuing booklets with advice on how to survive war or a natural disaster.Nearby Poland is now preparing its guidelines, while Norway recently published a book with advice on how to survive for one week.'We live in an increasingly turbulent world,' it says. 'Even though in Norway most things generally function as they normally would, we must remain aware that extreme weather, pandemics, accidents, sabotage — and in the worst case acts of war — can impact us.'MIDD, one of Latvia's three security services, alongside the State Security Service and the Constitution Protection Bureau, warned that Russian saboteurs might also attempt to incite unrest or assassinate 'socially significant individuals.'Their activities might also be focused on 'studying the position of the target country's society and inciting unrest directed against the existing government.'The agency cautioned that appearances can deceive.'The Ukrainian experience shows that Russian special services are able to adapt,' the report says. Not all spies will fit the mold, and suspicions must be judged in context.It also warns that if a sabotage group is spotted, leave the James Bond heroics to the professionals.'If you do think you might have spotted a sabotage group on Latvian soil, MIDD does not recommend tackling them yourself,' it said. 'Instead report your suspicions to the State Police, special services, or the nearest armed forces unit.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
Al Arabiya
16 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Europe can sustain Ukraine's war effort without US, German general says
Europe is capable of sustaining Ukraine's resistance against Russia, even if the United States were to decide to completely halt its military support to Kyiv, the senior military official in charge of coordinating Germany's arms supplies told Reuters. Major General Christian Freuding said NATO's European members plus Canada had already exceeded the estimated $20 billion worth of US military aid provided last year to Kyiv. They accounted for around 60 percent of the total costs borne by the Western allies, he said. 'The war against Ukraine is raging on our continent, it is also being waged against the European security order. If the political will is there, then the means will also be there to largely compensate for the American support,' Freuding said in an interview. Ukraine continues to receive weapons deliveries approved by former US President Joe Biden. It is unclear, however, whether his successor Donald Trump will sign off on any new supplies - or allow third countries to purchase US weapons for Kyiv. Asked how long the Biden-approved deliveries will sustain Kyiv, Freuding said this depended on logistical processes as well as the speed at which Ukraine burns through arms and ammunition, but that the summer seemed a realistic estimate. 'How the American government handles further requests for military support for Ukraine is unclear at the moment. We can't say anything about that,' he added. 'In general, the US has a great interest in boosting its own defense industry. I make the cautious assumption that at least purchasing US defense goods, and delivering them to Ukraine, will be possible.' Russian rearmament Addressing the potential threat that Russia might pose beyond Ukraine, Freuding said Moscow had a clear plan to reconstitute and grow its military, and was expected to succeed in efforts to double its land forces to 1.5 million by 2026. 'They are recruiting significantly more personnel than they need as replacements for the war in Ukraine. They are producing surplus stocks of ammunition, in particular, which they are 'putting on store.'' Freuding said Russia was also ramping up its military infrastructure, especially in its western military district bordering new NATO member Finland. Any ceasefire in Ukraine could allow Russia to accelerate its rearmament efforts ahead of a possible large-scale attack on NATO territory, he said. The alliance currently believes this could occur from 2029. 'Of course, a ceasefire could change the threat situation,' Freuding said. Russia denies planning to attack NATO and says it is waging a 'special military operation' in Ukraine to protect its own security against what it casts as an aggressive, hostile West. Germany has provided a total of 38 billion euros ($43 billion) in military aid to Ukraine, including funds earmarked for the coming years, making it the second largest donor after the United States, the defense ministry in Berlin says. Freuding said he was not aware of the Trump administration having endorsed any US arms deliveries to Kyiv paid for by third countries. Still, making up for certain crucial parts of US military support to Ukraine would pose significant challenges to Europe. Listing capabilities that would be hard for Europeans to replace, Freuding cited US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data, air defense systems like Patriot and spare parts for US weapons. 'If we are capable of replacing specific (ISR) capabilities to a sufficient extent - we need to look into this when we definitely know the Americans won't provide this data anymore.' Ukraine uses US intelligence data to help its air defense, and analysts say also for targeting.
Arab News
a day ago
- Arab News
Polish foreign minister takes aim at Musk after Trump clash
WARSAW: Poland's foreign minister poked fun at Elon Musk late on Thursday, returning to a social media spat from March after the Tesla and SpaceX boss spectacularly fell out with US President Donald Trump. Warsaw's top diplomat Radoslaw Sikorski found himself embroiled in an extraordinarily public clash with Musk and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March after he said Ukraine may need an alternative to the Starlink satellite service. Amid a flurry of posts on his social media platform X, Musk had told Sikorski to 'Be quiet, small man.' On Thursday simmering tensions between Musk and Trump exploded into a public feud, as the president threatened to cut off government contracts to companies run by the world's richest man. Musk suggested Trump should be impeached. Sikorski took aim at Musk in a post on X, saying 'See, big man, politics is harder than you thought.' There was no immediate response to the post from Musk.
