Security & Defence covers European security policy and the defence landscape, from CSDP and the Strategic Compass to NATO–EU cooperation. Reporting includes capability development and procurement, industry and supply chains, PESCO, EDF and CARD, readiness and deployments, deterrence and air/missile defence, cyber and space security, hybrid threats and resilience, intelligence and counter-intelligence, export controls and standardisation, budgets and R&D, exercises and interoperability, and operational support to partners including Ukraine.
Polish services detained a Belarusian and a Polish citizen over alleged intelligence activity targeting exiles, highlighting how Minsk’s repression can extend into EU territory through surveillance and intimidation.
Polish security services have detained two people suspected of gathering intelligence on Belarusian exiles for the Belarusian state, extending an investigation that previously led to five other arrests.
A Belarusian citizen and a Polish citizen were detained, according to Poland’s security-services spokesperson. The allegations remain subject to investigation and trial, and neither suspect should be treated as guilty before a court decision.
Polish authorities say the operation was intended to collect information, intimidate exiles and support hostile propaganda. The case shows how transnational repression can turn ordinary life in an EU host country into an extension of the security pressure dissidents fled.
Exile does not end the threat
Poland hosts a large Belarusian community, including opposition activists, journalists and people who left after the disputed 2020 presidential election and subsequent repression.
For Minsk, monitoring those networks can identify organisers, sources, family links and financial support. Information gathered in Poland may be used to threaten relatives in Belarus, disrupt opposition groups or build criminal cases under Belarusian law.
Surveillance also has a wider chilling effect. Exiles who believe meetings, demonstrations or online activity are monitored may withdraw from public life even without a direct threat.
The Polish investigation reportedly follows arrests in November involving three Belarusians and two Ukrainians. Additional Polish reporting says further detentions remain possible.
A frontline counter-intelligence problem
Poland’s geography and politics make it a principal target for Belarusian and Russian intelligence. The country supports Ukraine, hosts allied forces and serves as a centre for Belarusian democratic opposition.
Hostile services can use professional officers, recruited residents or online intermediaries. Small payments and encrypted messaging reduce the need for traditional agent-handling meetings.
Counter-intelligence work must distinguish genuine espionage from lawful political activity and community contact. Overbroad suspicion can damage trust with the very exile groups authorities seek to protect.
The strongest protection combines targeted investigation with secure reporting channels, witness support and clear guidance for organisations handling sensitive personal data.
EU protection has a cross-border dimension
Belarusian exiles travel and organise across the Schengen area. Information collected in one country may concern people in another, requiring cooperation among security and police services.
The EU has sanctions against Belarusian officials and entities linked to repression, but sanctions do not by themselves protect individuals from surveillance. Member states need mechanisms to share threat assessments and respond to harassment linked to foreign governments.
Digital security is particularly important. Phishing, account compromise and impersonation can reveal networks without physical surveillance. Civil-society organisations require practical cyber support, not only warnings.
The rule-of-law distinction
Poland must prosecute credible intelligence activity while preserving fair-trial rights. That distinction separates EU security policy from the arbitrary methods used against opponents in Belarus.
Public statements should avoid exposing victims or compromising the continuing investigation. Courts must test whether the accused knowingly worked for a foreign service and what information they obtained.
The case is a reminder that asylum and residence are not the end of Europe’s responsibility to political exiles. Protection must include the ability to speak and organise without being followed by the state they escaped.
