The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE) has issued a warning about the threat of instrumentalised migration. According to the Centre, "large-scale instrumentalised migration could cause significant problems for Finland's societal peace, as well as public order and security, potentially impairing crisis decision-making and operational capabilities."
The Centre also noted that "it is possible that by exploiting disinformation arising from such a situation, solidarity towards Finland within Europe could be significantly diminished. Should such a hybrid campaign become highly effective, it may pave the way for some unexpected political and military arrangements."
The Centre drew attention to the fact that “unauthorised crossing of Finland’s eastern land border is considerably easier and safer than the hundreds of kilometres of sea travel across the Mediterranean. Therefore, Finland may face even greater pressure than what has traditionally been seen at the Mediterranean. This vulnerability is of a permanent nature, and Russia can exploit this mechanism with minimal effort.”
A representative of the Hybrid CoE also pointed out the EU Commission's stance, which states that "to safeguard the security of the Union and the territorial integrity of its member states, it is essential that member states bordering Russia and Belarus can act decisively and firmly to effectively control the Union’s external borders. Consequently, member states may need to make exceptions to EU regulations if instrumentalised migration threatens the public order, internal security, or national security of the Union and its member states."
* * *
This expert statement was issued in connection with the plans to extend Finland's border security law concerning the eastern frontier. Originally passed as a one-year measure in the summer of 2024, the law sparked intense debate, particularly among the political green-left. As a result, six Social Democrats, one Swedish People's Party representative, and the entire parliamentary groups of the Greens and the Left Alliance voted against it. Despite the objections from MPs who, in effect, aligned themselves with Russia’s position, the law passed in Parliament with the necessary majority: 167 votes to 31.
This spring, the political left has once again voiced pro-Moscow criticism regarding the extension of the border law (one, two, three examples). That is why it is important that the expert statement referenced above not only addressed the actual threats but also clearly highlighted the European Commission’s position, which justifies deviation from EU regulations in cases of instrumentalised migration.
Indeed, it would be an utterly untenable situation if the EU or any of its member states were unable to defend themselves against hostile threats from the East simply because they clung to regulatory frameworks, regardless of the consequences. One would hope this point would be heard—and more importantly, understood—even by the political green-left, though that may be a vain hope.
In the coming weeks, we shall see what kind of spectacle unfolds in the Finnish Parliament and the media as the border security law is revisited. However, it already seems clear that this is nothing more than political theatre, as there are ultimately too few MPs willing to act as Putin’s advocates by opposing Finland’s security interests and reopening the country’s borders to hybrid operations. Still, it is helpful that they reveal themselves so openly.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare
