In 2021, Europe faced a migrant crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border as a result of the deliberate actions of Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s regime. The so-called “Operation Sluice” involved bringing in migrants from the Middle East and Africa to escalate tensions on the borders of Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. However, in hindsight, it is worth considering whether these actions may have been part of a broader strategy related to preparing for a full-scale Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022. The state of access to information of the Putin and Lukashenko regimes is, of course, limited, and inferences can most often be based on analogies, experience and an understanding of who might be the beneficiaries of certain situations.
Operation Sluice as an element of hybrid warfare
Russia has been using hybrid warfare tactics for years, combining traditional military actions with disinformation operations, cyber attacks and political pressure. Operation Sluice fit perfectly into this scheme. Belarus, backed by the Kremlin, deliberately provoked a migrant crisis to distract the European Union from the situation in eastern Ukraine and potentially undermine Western support for Kyiv.
The goal of these actions was:
– To force EU countries such as Poland, Lithuania and Latvia to commit significant resources to border protection.
– Strengthen political divisions within the European Union by creating tensions around migration issues.
– Testing the West’s ability to respond quickly and in a coordinated manner to hybrid crises.
Preparing for an attack on Ukraine
Russia has been conducting intensive preparations for a full-scale conflict with Ukraine since 2014. Military maneuvers, the concentration of troops near the border and the gradual escalation of rhetoric in the state media indicated that the Kremlin was planning an offensive. In this context, the migrant crisis at the EU borders may have been aimed at:
– Confuse opponents by creating additional flashpoints in the region.
– Limit the attention and resources of countries supporting Ukraine.
– To build a narrative of instability on NATO’s eastern flank.
An additional aspect was the desire to test the response of NATO countries to a variety of hybrid threats. Russia was thus able to assess the level of readiness and cooperation among allies, which was crucial for planning further actions.
Response of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine
Countries in the region reacted quickly and decisively to the migrant crisis, which may have limited the effectiveness of Russian plans:
1. Poland:
– Building a border barrier and strengthening border controls helped stem the flow of migrants.
– An effective diplomatic campaign publicized the topic internationally, which led to the introduction of sanctions against the Lukashenko regime.
– Poland has also established close cooperation with NATO partners, which has allowed it to better monitor the situation on the alliance’s eastern flank.
2 Lithuania and Latvia:
– Supported by the European Union, these countries have introduced new regulations to allow faster deportation of illegal migrants.
– They have strengthened cooperation with Frontex, which has improved border monitoring.
– Lithuania additionally increased its defense capabilities on its border with Belarus to minimize the risk of provocations.
3 Ukraine:
– Ukraine has played a key role in monitoring the situation on the eastern border while strengthening its own defense capabilities.
– Intelligence cooperation with Western countries allowed it to detect threats more quickly.
– Kyiv strengthened its armed forces in the border regions, which could have deterred potential attempts at destabilization.
The Kremlin’s goals not achieved
Despite an intensive propaganda campaign and the creation of a migration crisis, Russia has failed to achieve its stated goals. The reasons for this are:
– The decisive response of countries in the region: Poland, Lithuania and Latvia quickly implemented effective countermeasures, restricting the flow of migrants.
– Publicity of the problem in the international arena: Diplomatic efforts highlighted Belarus’ responsibility for the crisis.
– Support for Ukraine: The West did not divert attention from the situation in eastern Ukraine, and in fact intensified military and economic assistance.
– Failure to break NATO unity: The alliance countries managed to maintain cohesion in the face of the migration crisis and the threat from Russia.
Conclusions
On the issue of the so-called migration crisis, the assumption should be made that Belarus was carrying out broader mandated tasks agreed with the Kremlin. The so-called Operation Sluice and the migrant crisis may have been part of Russia’s preparatory strategy for a full-scale attack on Ukraine. However, decisive action by countries in the region, such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine, effectively limited the impact of these actions. This shows that international cooperation and rapid response to hybrid crises are crucial in countering Russian aggression. The actions taken by the countries of the region not only minimized the effects of the migration crisis, but also strengthened their position in international structures, demonstrating their ability to effectively defend themselves against threats. However, it should be noted that Russia may return to trying to exploit migration issues in the future as well.
