Weaponized Migration: Russia’s Hybrid Tactic to Destabilize and Disrupt the EU & Schengen-border States

Part 1: Understanding Weaponized Migration as a Hybrid Threat Against Europe

Introduction  

In December 2024, the European Union’s Commission acknowledged the gravity of the threats  targeting its eastern borders. In response it allocated €170 million in funds to support the member states directly  involved (EC). These attacks, though, are not of any conventional military type, they concern one of Russia’s evolving hybrid warfare tactics, weaponized migration. 

Though what is weaponized migration? 

In short, it is the deliberate use of migratory flows as a tool for achieving political, economic, or  military objectives. 

Today, Russia, in coordination with Belarus, has been orchestrating migratory flows into the EU. They are instrumentalizing human displacements as a geopolitical tool to destabilize and divide the union.  Their strategy has resulted in escalating pressures at the borders of Finland, Poland, Latvia,  Lithuania, Estonia, and Norway. The Union's funds for support aim to aid with enhanced technological equipment for surveillance and telecommunications, to upgrade the border security. 

Europe has strongly condemned Russia’s tactical game to threaten the security of the EU.This threat exploits the vulnerability of human beings by using them as geopolitical tools. At the same time, criticism has also emerged within Europe, as some countries have adopted heavily securitized measures that violate humanitarian standards to counter the migratory pressure. 

This analysis aims to unpack the complexity of weaponized migration by drawing on foundational  literature and analyzing its key impacts. This will touch upon the resulting effects of the instrumentalization of migration, such as the anti-immigration rhetoric and its boost for far-right populism.

Hybird Threats

Firstly, to understand the strategy of weaponized migration, it is important to apprehend how it lies  under the umbrella of hybrid threats. 

Generally, these activities encompass actions that are intended to have a harmful impact. Typically they are designed to threaten, for instance, a state or an institution (Hybrid CoE). This is how it is defined by the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE), a hub of experts and professionals that aim to anticipate and identify threats targeting the EU and NATO. 

The Hybrid CoE explains how these harmful acts are continuously evolving, using various  techniques such as cyberattacks, coercive diplomacy, threats of military force, influence  operations, and more. The perpetrators of such threats are often authoritarian states/regimes and  non-state actors, which may act as proxies for the autocratic regime. What increases the growing concern about these activities lies in their complexity, hence being difficult to detect and counter effectively. Weaponized migration fits squarely within this framework, operating as a subtle yet potent tactic under the broader umbrella of hybrid threats.

Weaponized Migration

To have a comprehensive understanding of weaponized migration, it is necessary to go through  the widely regarded foundational work, Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War (2008)  by Kelly Greenhill. The American professor and political scientist wrote this highly influential work on this topic, presenting the tactic of  strategically engineered migration, as defined:

“In- or out-migrations that are deliberately induced or manipulated by state or non-state  actors, in ways designed to augment, reduce, or change the composition of the population  residing within a particular territory, for political or military ends.” (Greenhill, 2008, p.7)

Her work combines case studies and statistical data to provide a detailed examination of the  instrumentalization of migration. The study presents four types of strategic engineered migration,  building upon the previous works of Myron Weiner (political scientist) and Michael Teitelbaum  (demographer).

Dispossessive

This type involves forcibly removing a population to gain control over a territory, often associated with ethnic cleansing and territorial consolidation.

Exportive

Employed to empower domestic power by forcing out unwanted groups, such as political  adversaries.

Militarized

The use of the strategy in armed conflict, where migration is weaponized to destabilize enemy governments and disrupt their military operations.

Coercive

The use of instrumentalized migration as a foreign policy tool, where the actors employing such strategy use it to threaten or generate mass migration to pressure other governments into political concessions. The strategy is often low-cost and morally manipulative, exploiting the values and vulnerabilities of democratic states, turning humans into a political tool for leverage. 

In her most recent interview, Greenhill delineates the coercive type as the most visible in current  times. She states how more governments use it openly, as well as targeted states acknowledge the pressure  they are facing. In her view, the growing recognition of such a threat is leading to better  preparations to avoid future migratory crises (Vox). However, this is also posing a negative effect, as some targeted states are using the situation as a political tool to justify harsh immigration policies, including inhumane measures such as pushbacks. Her interview is highly relevant to this analysis, as in the following sections, this concern will be addressed, exploring the controversies of how  some countries have been responding to weaponized migration.

Moreover, Greenhill’s framework outlines five core motivations behind the use of strategic engineered  migration.

1. Asymmetric Leverage: Weaker actors may pursue such a strategy to destabilize more powerful states, pressuring them into negotiations.

2. The Paradox of Liberalism: Illiberal regimes face low reputational costs, hence target liberal democracies as they are more constrained by their ethical norms.

3. Exploitation of liberal values: Through this strategy, the perpetrators manipulate the humanitarian principles of liberal societies to provoke political or policy responses.

4. Operational advantages: Cheaper and less risky than traditional tactics, requiring no use of  force.

5. Economic Benefits: Strategy may involve economic gains through property confiscations and bribes extracted from refugees attempting to flee.

The following section will analyze the situation of the current threats targeting the eastern borders of the Schengen area, in addition it will apply Greenhill’s framework to understand the strategy and the motivations behind Russia and Belarus's actions.

The Threat from the East

The pressure from the east is evident, a 192% increase in irregular border crossings from 2023 to 2024 via the Eastern European Route has been registered by Frontex. In addition, the agency emphasized how the intensified flow is being generated by the hybrid strategy employed by Russia and Belarus to destabilize Europe (Frontex).

This threat has impacted a wide stretch of the Schengen eastern frontier. From Norway and Finland, to Estonia and Lithuania, which border Russia, and further south to Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which border Belarus. These countries have been reporting a surge in migrants arriving via Russian and Belarusian territory. The governments of these states have been accusing the two perpetrators of deliberately facilitating the movement of migrants, coming from Africa and the Middle East, toward the European border, with the intent of provoking political instability and exacerbating one of Europe’s most contentious issues: immigration. 

As a result, the affected states have implemented increasingly restrictive border measures, including border checkpoints closures, enhanced control, and in some cases, legalizing pushbacks, raising serious concerns over compliance with EU and international humanitarian law.

One of the countries that has been mostly afflicted by the threat is Poland. In 2022 it allocated 405 million euros to construct a 180 km long, 5-meter-high fence along the border with Belarus to curb illegal crossings (APN news). During some of the peak migration months of 2024, approximately 400 individuals were recorded crossing the border daily (APN news). Notably, 90% of the migrants held Russian student or tourist visas, indicating they had first traveled through Russia before attempting to enter Europe, revealing a significant and deliberate migration route (EU News).

Russia’s ally Belarus, which has actively supported this strategy, holds additional motivations for intensifying the influx of migrants toward the EU.This dates back to 2021, when the Lukashenko regime began employing weaponized migration as a form of hybrid warfare in retaliation for EU sanctions following the president’s fraudulent re-election and subsequent repression. The Belarusian government coordinated with state-run and private travel agencies to bring migrants (primarily from the Middle East) into the country under false pretenses like tourism, then facilitated or ignored their illegal crossings into EU member states. Leaked communications and insider testimony reveal that border guards and special units actively escorted migrants to EU borders, turning human displacement into a political tool (Politico1).

Weaponized Migration as a Strategic Tool

Weaponized migration has emerged as a highly effective tactic within Russia’s broader hybrid warfare toolkit, alongside cyberattacks, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns. Operating in a geopolitical grey zone, it is difficult to attribute and even harder to counter, making it a particularly disruptive instrument of influence (CSIS). 

The pattern of Russian involvement in engineered migration is not new. Notably, there was high suspicion of its involvement in Syria’s mass refugee flows during the 2015-2016 migratory crisis, by supporting the Assad regime, thereby contributing to mass displacement. (The new global order).

Today, similarities can be seen in Russia’s targeting of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, triggering additional migratory flows into Europe. Furthermore, Russia’s growing influence in African countries such as Libya, Sudan, and Mozambique, often exercised through the Wagner Group, a Kremlin-linked proxy, has been linked to regional destabilization and displacement (Hoover).

As Frontex has highlighted, this expanding presence in Africa poses a growing strategic concern, with the potential to generate further waves of migration toward the EU (Frontex).

Reflecting on Greenhill’s Framework

Looking at Greenhill's study, Russia’s strategy mostly closely aligns with the coercive type. While Russia has not issued explicit demands in exchange for halting the migratory pressure, its manipulation of flows serves as a political tool to destabilize the EU.

As Greenhill explains, coercive migration can be used by powerful actors to achieve political objectives at a lower cost than direct military intervention (p.11). This framing aptly describes Russia’s strategy, as it manipulates migratory flows as an additional component of its hybrid warfare arsenal.

Among Greenhill’s five motivational categories, several are particularly relevant. Asymmetric leverage strongly ties to Belarus's case, being a weaker actor leveraging migration to challenge the EU. The paradox of liberalism also applies, as the two illiberal regimes (Belarus and Russia) face fewer reputational costs and exploit the moral and legal constraints that liberal democracies impose on themselves. Closely related is the exploitation of liberal values, where the actors deliberately provoke humanitarian and legal dilemmas, forcing liberal states into politically vulnerable positions, as seen in the backlash over pushbacks and border militarization. The fourth motivation, operational advantage, is partially applicable, while not being Russia’s primary driver, weaponized migration delivers significant disruption at low economic and political cost. Finally, economic benefit appears marginal for Russia, though Belarusian actors have profited through visa schemes, transport fees, and bribes (Politico 2).

Overall, Russia’s strategy is best explained through the lenses of the paradox of liberalism and the exploitation of humanitarian norms, while the other motivations offer secondary advantages to the  broader goal of destabilizing the EU. 

Political Destabilization and Fragmentation

The weaponization of migration has been highly influential in generating political fragmentation within Europe. Migratory pressure along the borders of Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Estonia, and Finland has strengthened far-right populist movements by fueling anti-immigration rhetoric. As migration remains a central and divisive issue in EU politics, Russia benefits directly from the polarization and erosion of consensus it helps provoke (Hoover).

Far-right parties such as Rassemblement National in France and Alternative für Deutschland in  Germany, both of which have expressed sympathy for Russia’s foreign policy, have gained ground, in part by exploiting migration as a wedge issue (Fpif, Hoover).

Moreover, a contrast has emerged in the treatment of migrants, Ukrainian refugees have been largely welcomed, while those from the Middle East and Africa face xenophobia, racial profiling, and policy exclusion. This double standard further deepens internal divisions and plays into Russia’s strategy of exploiting liberal contradictions.

Humanitarian and Legal Consequences

The societal fragmentation caused by weaponized migration has led several states to adopt  increasingly securitized migration policies. For instance, in 2024, Finland legalized the authorization for border  law enforcement to push back asylum seekers across the border with Russia. (Hoover) Similarly, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania have implemented restrictive border policies that raise concerns over violations of international refugee protections (Le Monde, Politico 1).

According to the Human Rights Watch, Poland has created exclusion zones that block humanitarian access, while reports have surfaced of physical abuse by border officials and widespread use of legal immunity laws shielding them from prosecution. Since 2021, at least 87 migrant deaths have been reported near the Polish-Belarusian border, although the real number is likely higher due to underreporting and limited access (HRW).

These developments raise serious legal and ethical concerns under European and international human rights law. Treating migration as a geopolitical weapon has not only strained the EU’s legal frameworks, it has also precipitated a moral crisis, in which human lives are instrumentalized for political gain.

Conclusion  

The current situation carries serious long-term implications, one of the most pressing being the growing risk of securitizing migration. As highlighted throughout this analysis, several countries have adopted heavily security-driven responses that undermine fundamental rights and humanitarian obligations. This reflects not only the legal ambiguity surrounding weaponized migration but also the absence of a unified and coordinated European response.

NATO has acknowledged the instrumentalization of irregular migration as part of Russia’s broader hybrid strategy aimed at destabilizing the Alliance. Yet, despite this recognition, NATO has neither prioritized the threat nor developed targeted measures to address it effectively. This limited engagement reveals a troubling gap between NATO’s strategic awareness and its operational capacity to respond to migration as a tool of hybrid warfare (NATO).

Meanwhile, the EUAA Asylum Report 2025 illustrates how instrumentalized migration is increasingly framed as a national security threat, driving Member States to support temporary derogations from EU law. This securitized turn has led to expanded internal border checks, formalized by the 2024 revision of the Schengen Borders Code (EUAA). However, the implementation of these measures has drawn serious criticism. Reports of violent pushbacks, physical abuse, and systemic mistreatment suggest that, in practice, these policies often exceed the legal boundaries they claim to operate within. This raises urgent questions: Why has the EU failed to ensure that its response to hybrid threats upholds its legal and ethical obligations? And more fundamentally, is the use of violence truly necessary in addressing such threats?

The EU’s inconsistent approach further undermines its credibility. The swift and humane activation of the Temporary Protection Directive for over 4.7 million Ukrainians stands in sharp contrast to the punitive measures used in other cases, such as at the Belarus border (European Commission; European Papers; Social Europe). By framing certain migrants as tools of hybrid warfare while others receive protection and dignity, the EU reveals a troubling strategic and moral inconsistency. This not only dehumanizes vulnerable people but also reinforces the coercive strategies of regimes like Belarus and Russia. The EU clearly has the capacity for coordinated, rights-based responses, but chooses to reserve them for politically convenient situations.

Organizations such as NATO must improve their ability to distinguish weaponized migration from broader irregular flows, while maintaining strict adherence to international law (CSIS). Recommendations include the development of early warning systems, intelligence-sharing mechanisms, and enhanced monitoring in vulnerable regions such as North Africa, where risks of instrumentalization are rising. Additionally, anticipatory risk assessments are crucial to mitigate potential flows and ensure that policy responses are proportional and lawful.

It is also essential to reaffirm that migrants themselves are the primary victims, along with both the countries they leave and those they enter. While emergency measures may be required in moments of acute pressure, they must be temporary, proportionate, and never used to justify open-ended derogations from the rule of law (The New Global Order). Clear criteria should govern such exceptions. Long-term solutions must emphasize sustained cooperation between states, and above all, the EU must recommit to its humanitarian responsibilities, ensuring that its migration policies remain grounded in international law and human rights.

In sum, weaponized migration is a sophisticated instrument of hybrid warfare, sharpened by Russia’s strategic manipulation of displacement. Responding effectively requires not only defensive tools, but a coherent, principled, and rights-based European strategy. A follow-up analysis will examine individual country responses to further explore the political, legal, and humanitarian impacts of this growing challenge.