Russia’s hand in acts of sabotage across Europe

Today, the Estonian government formally attributed the arson attack on Milrem Robotics – the Tallinn-based company that manufactures unmanned ground systems and supplies technology to Ukraine – to Russia. For Tallinn, this is no longer merely an incident of sabotage on national territory, but an operation commissioned by the Russian intelligence services. The fire broke out during the night of 14–15 August in a building used by Milrem, and in the days that followed, the Latvian police arrested three Latvian nationals suspected of having started the fire. The Estonian investigation had kept open – whilst never making the details of the inquiry public – the possibility that a sabotage operation lay behind the incident. Today confirmation has arrived: the Estonian Internal Security Service has stated that an assessment of the information gathered establishes that the attack was commissioned by the Russian intelligence services, and Prime Minister Kristen Michal has described it as part of a wider Russian campaign in Europe aimed at intimidating Western countries and reducing support for Ukraine.

This is what happened in Germany following the drone attack on Leipzig Airport on 4 August. Berlin waited weeks before formally attributing the attempted attack to Russia, and explicitly explained that political attribution differs from judicial determination because the police, intelligence services and analysis of the methods used had provided sufficient evidence to link the operation to Moscow, whilst the criminal investigation was still ongoing. The German government had spoken of a “clear attribution” and emphasised that its aim was to arrive at a complete picture and reliable conclusions regarding the responsible actor. Today, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov denied Estonia’s accusations: “Such claims are baseless and reckless.” But this is precisely the purpose of a public and definitive attribution: to prevent speculation and potential disinformation from mounting on both sides. This is the most critical issue in Italy and other European countries, where explicitly naming Russia (or China or Iran) in the event of potential hybrid attacks is considered politically too risky: following the fire on 13 August at the former Simmel Difesa munitions factory (now owned by KNDS Ammo Italy) in Colleferro, the Ministry of Defence had stated that it was keeping all possibilities open. The judiciary is still investigating, but there appears to be no ongoing discussion leading to a political decision on the case in the near future – following the Estonian or German model – that would dispel doubts about the incident, one way or another.

Meanwhile, Moscow is attempting to respond by turning the narrative on its head and accusing NATO of fuelling the risk of a direct confrontation. Today, Russia sent a diplomatic note to the Alliance protesting against the exercises which, according to Russia, simulate the isolation of Kaliningrad and increase the risk of a direct confrontation. NATO has confirmed that it has received the note and has responded by reiterating the Alliance’s defensive nature and denouncing Russian threats to resort to force, including those of a nuclear nature.