In today’s world, the migration crisis has become an acute challenge due to the dramatic increase in refugees and illegal migrants, demanding comprehensive solutions from the international community. Migration can be triggered by economic factors, wars, natural disasters, and increasingly by environmental change.
Traditionally, migration was seen as a humanitarian and social issue. Yet in recent years it has increasingly turned into an instrument of pressure, deployed for geopolitical purposes. Nowhere has this been more visible than in Europe, against the backdrop of escalating tensions with Russia and its closest allies. Refugee and migrant flows, directed and stimulated from outside, have become a tool of hybrid warfare—where borders turn into battlefields without weapons, but with real victims and consequences.
The first alarm bells rang at the Belarusian-Polish and Belarusian-Lithuanian borders in the autumn of 2021. Thousands of people, mostly from the Middle East and Africa, rushed towards the EU’s frontiers. The European Commission and the European Parliament classified this crisis as an artificial construct engineered by Minsk with Moscow’s support. The methods were cynical: migrants were flown to Minsk on charter flights, promised easy passage into Europe, and then left stranded for weeks in forests, suffering from cold, hunger, and violence. Human Rights Watch even documented cases of deaths.
For Europe, this resulted in a cascade of negative consequences. An artificially induced humanitarian crisis emerged at its borders, with people trapped outside legal frameworks and asylum procedures. Communities living near Belarus faced an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Inside EU member states, the crisis boosted the standing of populist and far-right parties, which capitalized on the “Europe under threat” narrative to consolidate their electoral base. At the same time, EU countries were forced to pour enormous resources into border fortification. Poland and Finland, for instance, received hundreds of millions of euros from Brussels to build fences and deploy new surveillance systems—investments their national budgets could not sustain alone.
But the crisis also struck at the very core of European values: human rights. Illegal deportations, pressure on human rights defenders, and restrictions on NGOs assisting migrants were documented repeatedly. The situation was further aggravated by targeted disinformation campaigns. Russian and pro-Russian outlets propagated myths about a “migrant invasion,” rising crime, and the “loss of European identity.” Studies by the European Commission showed that migration became one of the top themes for disinformation, undermining trust in EU institutions, fueling internal divides, and turning migration into a dominant political irritant.
Parallel to this, Europe faced a new migration wave—an exodus of Russian citizens following Moscow’s full-scale war against Ukraine. Analysts estimate that more than 600,000 Russians fled conscription, political repression, and economic hardship. Europe became a primary destination, creating additional pressure on host states. Unlike migrants from the Middle East, this “Russian” group is politically diverse: some openly oppose Putin’s regime, others remain loyal to the Kremlin, while many adopt a neutral stance.
Security services across Europe have voiced concern that among these flows may be Russian intelligence operatives or “sleeping” agents. High-profile investigations in Slovenia and Bulgaria revealed spies posing as emigrants, using forged documents to integrate. Czech and Spanish services have also uncovered attempts to recruit migrants—including Russians—via Telegram channels to engage in sabotage, arson, and intelligence gathering. This highlights how migration can serve not only as a humanitarian byproduct of war but also as a conduit for covert operations.
Public perception of Russian migrants remains ambivalent. In the Baltic states and Eastern Europe, some see them as victims of an oppressive regime in need of protection, while others regard them as potential threats—or as competitors in already strained labor markets. Lithuania and Latvia have tightened residency permit rules for Russians, citing security concerns. At the everyday level, suspicion and even hostility are on the rise, deepening societal tensions and laying fertile ground for conflict.
Another vulnerability stems from the sizeable Russian-speaking diasporas in Europe. The Kremlin actively exploits social media and online media channels to cultivate “parallel realities” among these communities, undermining trust in host societies and reinforcing a divide between “us” and “them.” Such strategies amplify discontent, provoke conflicts, and shape public sentiment in EU countries, where integrating Russian migrants remains a long-term challenge.
For Moscow and Minsk, this form of pressure is advantageous for multiple reasons. It distracts Europe from the war in Ukraine, exacerbates internal divisions within the EU, and undermines the Union’s image as a defender of human rights. Russian propaganda gains the opportunity to portray Europe as failing to uphold its own commitments and collapsing from within.
The EU has recognized the scale of the threat and started responding. Frontex has been given enhanced powers; sanctions were imposed on airlines and entities involved in transporting migrants to Belarus; and special funds have been created to reinforce border security. Yet one question remains unresolved: how can Europe protect itself from the weaponization of migration without compromising fundamental human rights?
The migration crisis, fueled in part by Russia and its allies, has become a vivid example of how humanitarian issues can be weaponized in hybrid warfare. It has shown that modern security is not only about tanks and missiles, but also about societies’ ability to resist manipulation, safeguard legal standards, and preserve solidarity. Whether Europe can strike the balance between security and human rights will determine not only the future of migration policy but also the political resilience of the Union itself.