THE HARVEST: RUSSIA'S DIASPORA INFLUENCE CAMPAIGNS
A leaked blueprint from Moscow confirms the playbook hasn’t changed — only the tools.
There is a young man somewhere in Europe. He watched his best friend burn to death inside the Trade Union House in Odesa on May 2, 2014. He wants nothing to do with today’s Ukraine.
A leaked document from Moscow State Institute of International Relations — MGIMO — identifies him. Not by name. By profile. By grief. By usefulness.
The document, dated December 2025, was produced by MGIMO’s Institute for International Studies under the direction of Vice-Rector for Research E.M. Kozhokin. It outlines a comprehensive strategy for influencing, cultivating, and — in time — activating Russian diaspora communities worldwide. The document, purportedly prepared for SVR and Presidential Administration, appeared weeks later through investigative journalist Michael Weiss’s team. Both documents’ authenticity remains disputed by Russian sources. Neither has been rebutted on specific grounds.
What they contain is a map. And the territory they describe has been under construction for a hundred years.
The Three Groups
The MGIMO document divides the Russian diaspora into three categories. The first group consists of loyalists — people who actively support Russian state positions and want to preserve Russian identity abroad. The second group consists of opponents — people who have broken with Moscow, many of them over the invasion of Ukraine. The third group, and the one that matters most to the document’s authors, is everyone else. The apolitical middle. People who left Russia for jobs, for lifestyle, for family reasons. People who have not yet decided what they think.
The document’s strategy for each group is explicit.
Loyalists: continue supporting them.
Opponents: maintain silence. Do not engage them. Do not elevate them. Deny them the visibility they need to sustain themselves as a coherent opposition.
The apolitical middle: reach them through culture and education. Sunday schools inside Orthodox churches. Library collections enriched with technology content and Russian medical achievements. Films. Documentary archives. University programs. All of it calibrated to avoid “potentially sensitive political issues” while systematically reinforcing ties to Russian identity and Russian institutions.
The operational logic is straightforward. You do not need to convert anyone. You need to keep them connected. Connected people are accessible. Accessible people are cultivatable. Cultivatable people are useful.
The document also recommends specific cultural programming designed to counter what it calls a “dead-end perception” allegedly created by post-modernist Russian filmmakers. It calls for introducing diaspora members to Soviet intellectual figures — Bakhtin, Likhachev, Mamardashvili — and leveraging ArtdocMedia documentary archives at Russian Centers for Science and Culture. It recommends presenting Russian banking systems as “more technologically advanced than even the best Western banks.” And for the wealthy diaspora — the millionaires and billionaires who left Russia after 2022 — the document recommends that after the conclusion of the “Special Military Operation,” they be offered “opportunities to participate in programs at the universities from which they graduated.”
Relationship maintenance. Not recruitment. Cultivation.
Kozhokin’s Position
E.M. Kozhokin, born 1954, holds the title of Vice-Rector for Research at MGIMO and serves as Chief Researcher at the university’s Institute for International Studies. His published work feeds directly into Russian foreign policy circles. The Atlantic Council’s 2019 report on Russian think tanks identified MGIMO as functioning essentially as an extension of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs — not an independent research institution but an operational planning shop with academic credentials.
MGIMO’s alumni roster confirms the institution’s centrality. Sergei Lavrov attended there. So did Yevgeny Primakov, who later directed the SVR. Anton Vaino, who has headed the Presidential Administration since 2016, is an alumnus. Andrei Kozyrev, who served as Foreign Minister from 1990 to 1996, attended there. Alexei Gromov, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration, is an alumnus.
Proekt Media documented in October 2019 that SVR actively recruits MGIMO students during their studies — a systematic process, not occasional outreach. The investigation, based on interviews with students and faculty, described a pipeline whereby promising students receive offers to join SVR operations. Estonian Internal Security Service corroborated this in an October 2023 assessment, noting that Russia “uses free education to recruit students to intelligence service.”
Kozhokin began his career during the Soviet period. He has worked continuously in Russian foreign policy institutions through every transition since. When he and his co-authors — A.L. Chechevishnikov and A.A. Baikov — produce a document on diaspora strategy, they are not theorizing. They are writing operational recommendations for agencies that have the mandate and the infrastructure to implement them.
The co-authors’ titles tell their own story. Chechevishnikov is listed as Scientific Editor. Baikov as Executive Editor. This is a publication pipeline, not a seminar paper.
Rossotrudnichestvo: The 81-Country Network
The primary implementation vehicle is Rossotrudnichestvo — the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation. Established by Presidential Decree in September 2008, the agency operates 81 Russian Houses and Russian Centers for Science and Culture across the globe. Berlin to Bamako. Kabul to Buenos Aires.
The MGIMO document treats Rossotrudnichestvo as the main tool for working with compatriots. It recommends specific adjustments to RCSC library collections, programming schedules, and outreach methods. The Russian Centers are where the document’s recommendations become operational reality.
On July 21, 2022, the European Union sanctioned Rossotrudnichestvo through Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270. The grounds stated in the regulation: “supporting actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine” and facilitating intelligence activities. Twenty-seven member states agreed on this determination. This was not a diplomatic gesture.
The agency’s leadership tells its own story.
Yevgeny Primakov Jr. has headed Rossotrudnichestvo since 2020. He is the grandson of Yevgeny Primakov — former SVR Director and Prime Minister. Natalia Poklonskaya, appointed deputy chief around 2022, made her name legitimizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea as prosecutor in the occupied peninsula. Igor Chaika, deputy head as of 2025, is the son of former Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika. The United States sanctioned Igor Chaika in 2022 specifically for influence operations in Moldova. He was subsequently promoted within Rossotrudnichestvo.
Ekaterina Solotsinskaya headed the Paris Russian Center for Science and Culture from 2017 to 2018. She is a diplomat’s daughter and former wife of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Her firing in 2018 followed scandals related to RCSC operations in France.
Promotion after sanctioning. Intelligence lineage in the top job. Annexation legitimizer as deputy. This is not an agency that treats intelligence activities as embarrassments to be managed. It treats them as qualifications.
The Washington Post’s December 2018 investigation documented cooperation between Rossotrudnichestvo and Russian intelligence services, specifically the agency’s role in establishing NGOs that serve as disinformation relays. The investigation described a pattern: Rossotrudnichestvo cultural centers provide diplomatic cover and local networks that GRU and SVR operatives exploit.
Country by Country
Azerbaijan. On February 6, 2025, Azerbaijani authorities closed the Rossotrudnichestvo Baku office. The official grounds were failure to register as a legal entity — procedurally simple, strategically decisive. Nine days earlier, on January 28, the news outlet Caliber.az had published an investigation documenting that the center served as cover for SVR and GRU operations. The investigation, based on interviews with Azerbaijani security officials, reported that Rossotrudnichestvo staff “usually accredited at the embassy” maintained cover positions while conducting intelligence work. Caliber.az also referenced scandals previously documented in Denmark and Cyprus involving similar allegations against Rossotrudnichestvo personnel.
Azerbaijan chose to enforce a registration requirement that had been overlooked for years. When a government decides a cultural center is an intelligence platform, the mechanism for terminating it already exists in administrative law.
Czech Republic. In April 2021, following the revelation that GRU officers were involved in the 2014 Vrbětice ammunition depot explosion that killed two people, Czech authorities expelled 18 Russian diplomats. Rossotrudnichestvo personnel were among them. Radio Free Europe confirmed the expulsions included agency staff. The Czech Security Information Service annual report for 2021 documented Russian intelligence operations conducted under cultural and diplomatic cover.
Moldova. The Moldovan Parliament voted November 27, 2025 to close the Chișinău Rossotrudnichestvo center, citing EU sanctions compliance and security concerns. Eurointegration reported that Moldovan security services assessed that the center was used to “organize events to consolidate occupied territories” — meaning Transnistria — and facilitate influence operations targeting Moldovan politics.
Germany — The Lisa Case. In January 2016, a fabricated story emerged claiming that a 13-year-old Russian-German girl had been kidnapped and raped by migrants in Berlin. Russian media amplified the narrative. Rossotrudnichestvo cultural centers provided logistical support and venues for protests based on the disinformation. The German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution analyzed the operation in its annual report. StopFake documented how Rossotrudnichestvo’s role extended from amplification to mobilization.
The Lisa case became a template. Russian media amplifies a false or exaggerated narrative. Rossotrudnichestvo mobilizes diaspora communities around it. The resulting protests and social tension serve Russian geopolitical interests by demonstrating supposed persecution of Russian speakers and undermining host-nation social cohesion. The disinformation works because the underlying anxieties — about immigration, about identity, about belonging — are real.
Russkiy Mir and the Immortal Regiment
Rossotrudnichestvo is not the only vector.
The Russkiy Mir (Russian World) Foundation, established 2007, promotes Russian language instruction, cultural events, and educational exchanges. The EU sanctioned Russkiy Mir on the same date as Rossotrudnichestvo — July 21, 2022, under the same legal instrument — for “destabilizing Ukraine” and facilitating disinformation. The Institute for European Integrity documented closures of foundation operations across multiple EU countries. The University of Dundee in Scotland stripped Russkiy Mir of its honorary degree in 2022.
Russkiy Mir lacks Rossotrudnichestvo’s diplomatic infrastructure. Its significance lies in institutional capture. By establishing Russkiy Mir classrooms and centers within Western universities and cultural institutions, the foundation gained legitimacy and access that explicit Russian government agencies could not achieve. The EU’s decision to sanction it alongside Rossotrudnichestvo indicates European intelligence services assess the foundation as part of an integrated influence apparatus.
The Immortal Regiment is a different kind of operation entirely.
The movement originated in 2012 in Tomsk as a genuinely grassroots commemoration. Citizens marched with photographs of relatives who fought in World War II. The idea spread organically across Russia and Russian-speaking communities worldwide. Family remembrance. Nothing more.
In 2015, the Russian state formally registered the Immortal Regiment as a nonprofit organization. Funding shifted to state sources — Rospatriotcenter and Rosmolodyozh. Leadership positions filled with government loyalists. By 2025, Russian embassies and Rossotrudnichestvo offices coordinated Immortal Regiment marches in over 120 countries.
United24Media’s May 2025 analysis documented the transformation. EUvsDisinfo published its own assessment the same week — titled “The Immortal Regiment: State-Appropriated Memories for Mobilisation” — characterizing the movement as a “tool for information warfare; soft power projection.”
The coordination structure is explicit. The Russian MFA’s May 6, 2025 briefing referenced “global marches” coordinated through diplomatic channels. Rossotrudnichestvo’s May 7, 2025 news release called for “joining movement” and noted coordination with local diaspora organizations. In the United States, “Russian Youth of the US” coordinates Washington DC marches held on Russian Embassy grounds.
Estonia and Latvia have banned public Immortal Regiment marches. The UK’s Defense Intelligence assessed in April 2023 that Russia cancelled domestic marches to avoid highlighting casualties from the Ukraine war.
In Norway, on Svalbard — the Arctic archipelago where treaty obligations guarantee Norwegian sovereignty but Russian residents have historically maintained a presence — the Arctic Institute documented a “Kremlin-orchestrated rally” in November 2025 as evidence of “militarized memory” and “radicalization of Russian community.”
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence analyzed Immortal Regiment activities as part of broader influence operations in the Nordic-Baltic region. Baltic security services incorporated these findings into their assessments.
And in Lithuania, a man named Alexey Greichus organized Immortal Regiment marches. He was sentenced to four years for espionage.
The trajectory is documented: grassroots commemoration, co-opted through state funding and organizational capture, weaponized for geopolitical purposes, prosecuted when host nations identify the intelligence function. The pattern repeats across every Russian diaspora engagement vector.
What the KGB Already Knew
None of this is new. The MGIMO document reads like a 2025 update to a playbook that has been in continuous use since 1925.
The Mitrokhin Archive — tens of thousands of pages of handwritten notes smuggled out of KGB headquarters by archivist Vasili Mitrokhin upon his defection in 1984 — provides the historical record. Mitrokhin spent twenty-three years, from 1972 to 1984, systematically copying and noting KGB files in his capacity as archivist for the First Chief Directorate. Upon his defection to the United Kingdom in 1992, he smuggled his notes concealed in milk cans buried in his garden. British intelligence services verified the Archive’s authenticity through cross-referencing with independently obtained intelligence. Christopher Andrew’s two-volume analysis — “The Sword and the Shield” in 1999 and “The World Was Going Our Way” in 2005 — remains the definitive treatment.
What the Archive reveals is not a collection of clever tricks. It reveals a system. A set of operational assumptions refined over decades, tested against real conditions, and institutionally preserved across the collapse of the Soviet Union.
VOKS, SSOD, and the Original Infrastructure
The infrastructure of diaspora control predates the Cold War.
VOKS — the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries — was established August 8, 1925 by decree of the Council of People’s Commissars. It organized exchanges of artists, academics, and cultural figures. Literary subdivisions. Musical subdivisions. Theatrical. Cinema. Juridical. Exhibition. Each one maintained intelligence functions alongside its ostensible cultural mandate.
The Mitrokhin Archive documents how VOKS served as a recruitment platform and provided cover for intelligence officers engaging with foreign diaspora communities and intellectuals. When VOKS was restructured into SSOD — the Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship and Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries — in 1958, the operational logic persisted. Only the organizational chart changed. The Wilson Center’s 2013 analysis documented how this restructuring allowed more targeted diaspora engagement while preserving KGB control.
Parallel to the cultural apparatus, the OGPU — later NKVD, then KGB — developed direct emigre control capabilities. The elaborate deception operations SINDIKAT and TREST, targeting White Guard emigres in the 1920s, established the template: identify diaspora communities, penetrate their organizations, use agents provocateurs to sow division, maintain surveillance networks that persist across decades.
The KGB’s First Chief Directorate maintained direct responsibility for monitoring and controlling Soviet emigres. Its Nineteenth Department specifically handled “Soviet Union Emigres,” with an EM Line dedicated to emigre operations. KGB Directorate S deployed deep cover “illegals” — intelligence officers with false identities living abroad for years — to infiltrate emigre communities. Mitrokhin Archive files document illegal operations “to search out and compromise dissidents in Warsaw Pact countries and emigre groups” with particular intensity during events like the 1968 Prague Spring.
The KGB compiled comprehensive wanted lists of defectors and emigres. A 1969 list, smuggled West by defector Artush Hovanesyan in 1972, included individuals from various Soviet republics with notes on sentences and responsible KGB units. A 2024 analysis in the Journal of Cold War Studies examined how these lists guided global pursuit of emigres for kidnapping, assassination, or discreditation operations.
The KGB deployed active measures — disinformation, forgeries, propaganda — to discredit emigre dissidents. The Mitrokhin Archive contains extensive notes on operations targeting Ukrainian and Jewish emigres in the 1970s, including fabricated documents designed to portray emigre leaders as collaborators or criminals.
Operation HORIZON, documented in Lithuanian KGB files, targeted Lithuanian emigre organizations in Germany between 1967 and 1968. The operation penetrated nationalist groups and institutions. Its methods — placement of agents within emigre organizations, creation of controlled opposition groups, use of compromising materials to turn emigres into informants — appear in contemporary Russian operations with remarkable consistency.
The U.S. Senate’s Church Committee documented American intelligence responses to Soviet diaspora operations in its April 1976 Final Report. The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held hearings in July 1982 on “Soviet Active Measures,” with congressional testimony documenting KGB attempts to influence U.S. elections through emigre networks — including offers made to presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Shelepin’s Grand Strategy
The Cuban Revolution transformed Soviet Third World strategy overnight.
August 1960: the Centre adopted codeword AVANPOST for Cuba — “for the first time in its history, a foothold in Latin America.” KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, who had first met Castro in Mexico in 1956, became the institutional bridge between Moscow and Havana. Leonov’s later assessment cut to the core of Soviet strategic thinking: “Basically, of course, we were guided by the idea that the destiny of world confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union... would be resolved in the Third World.”
On 29 July 1961, KGB Chairman Aleksandr Shelepin sent Khrushchev an outline of aggressive global grand strategy designed “to create circumstances in different areas of the world which would assist in diverting the attention and forces of the United States.” The plan proposed using national liberation movements “to activate by the means available to the KGB armed uprisings against pro-Western reactionary governments.” Central America was top priority. On 1 August 1961, the plan was approved as a Central Committee directive with only minor amendments.
This was not Foreign Ministry initiative. The Mitrokhin Archive makes clear that Foreign Minister Gromyko was “a cautious man who opposed any serious confrontation with the United States.” Third World operations were “led by the KGB with the support of the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee.” The institutional primacy of intelligence services over diplomacy in diaspora and Third World operations was established during this period. It persists in the contemporary Russian system.
Cuba simultaneously became a training ground. Castro was personally fascinated by intelligence tradecraft. He told DGI officers to “learn as much as possible from the KGB.” KGB illegal Vladimir Grinchenko spent 1961 to 1964 in Cuba advising DGI on illegal operations. Between 1962 and 1966, 650 Cuban illegals passed through Czechoslovakia carrying Venezuelan, Dominican, Argentinian, and Colombian documents — a pipeline for deploying agents across Latin American diaspora communities.
Nicaragua: Nineteen Years
The KGB’s Third World strategy depended on patience measured in decades.
The Mitrokhin Archive documents the FSLN’s penetration beginning in 1960 — nineteen years before the Sandinistas took power. Carlos Fonseca Amador, FSLN founder, was a KGB agent codenamed GIDROLOG from his attendance at the 1957 Moscow Youth Festival. Edelberto Torres Espinosa, codenamed PIMEN, was recruited by the Mexico City residency in 1960. Torres Espinosa served as Fonseca’s mentor and headed the Latin American Friendship Society — a front organization whose operational model would be replicated by the Rodina Society fifteen years later.
Manuel Andara y Ubeda, codenamed PRIM, headed a sabotage group of twelve Nicaraguan students recruited through GIDROLOG. On 22 November 1961, FCD chief Sakharovsky reported to KGB Chairman Semichastny that PRIM’s group was ready for operational training. Semichastny approved $10,000 funding the next day. Between November 1961 and January 1964, PRIM’s guerrillas received $25,200 through the Mexico City residency. PRIM was initially told the money came from “progressive bourgeoisie” rather than the KGB.
The guerrilla campaign suffered setbacks. The 1963 defeat. The 1967 Pancasan disaster that killed ISKRA leader Rigoberto Cruz Arguello, codenamed GABRIEL. The KGB maintained contact through the “period of silence” of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The investment paid off in 1979 when the Sandinistas took power.
Nineteen years. From first contact to government.
Chile: Eighteen Years and a Ballot Box
Salvador Allende represented a different strategic calculation. Not armed revolution. Electoral victory.
The Mitrokhin Archive documents KGB contact with Allende beginning in 1952 — eighteen years before his election as president. First contact was made by Line PR officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, codenamed LEONID, probably operating as a Novosti correspondent, in 1953. “Systematic contact” began after 1961 when a Soviet trade mission in Chile provided cover for a KGB presence.
Allende was classified as a “confidential contact.” Willing to cooperate. Providing information. Receiving funding. But never formally an agent. This was an important KGB distinction that preserved deniability — and that shaped the entire operational relationship.
An agent is bound. A confidential contact cooperates voluntarily. The relationship must be maintained through continuous cultivation. Personal attention. Financial support. Fulfillment of personal requests. Gifts of icons for Allende’s art collection. Sanatorium stays arranged for his wife. The KGB noted his requests and fulfilled them.
The 1970 election represented the operational payoff. Both the CIA and KGB spent heavily. The KGB’s money was “precisely targeted” in ways the CIA’s was not.
The 40 Committee approved a CIA propaganda campaign but forbade supporting either of Allende’s opponents. CIA Director Helms was skeptical of “beat somebody with nobody.” The KGB funded Allende directly — $50,000 personal subsidy. It supplemented Chilean Communist Party election funds — $400,000 base allocation plus an additional Politburo allocation. And it strategically paid a left-wing Senator $18,000 not to run as a spoiler candidate and split the vote.
Allende won by 39,000 votes out of three million cast.
Post-election, the KGB managed Allende with sophistication. Kuznetsov maintained direct access to the president — a channel that deliberately excluded the Soviet ambassador. Ambassador Basov tried to monopolize the relationship. Kuznetsov maintained a secret channel “for handling the most confidential and delicate matters.” The Santiago residency’s conflict with Basov illustrates the institutional dynamic: intelligence services bypassed diplomacy, not alongside it.
Kuznetsov fed Allende intelligence on CIA operations in Chile — including deliberate disinformation designed to manipulate Allende’s decisions. He collected Allende’s assessments of Latin American political situations and forwarded them directly to the Politburo. Allende served as a collection platform against third countries. Nikolai Leonov, deputy head of FCD Service 1 (Intelligence Analysis), was “full of praise for the quality” of what Allende provided.
The Chile operation failed. Pinochet’s coup on 11 September 1973 ended it. Allende committed suicide. The KGB had warned him about the coup threat. He paid too little attention.
The KGB’s assessment of why Chile failed is itself strategically instructive. Leonov recorded Andropov’s conclusion: “Allende’s fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the state, his hold on power could not be secure.”
The lesson drawn was not that electoral infiltration was futile. The lesson was that it required consolidation of security apparatus control.
The Post-Chile Reset
Chile’s fall triggered a strategic recalibration. A February 1974 Politburo review — the first general assessment of Latin American policy since the coup — defined three goals: broadening Soviet positions on the continent, supporting anti-American elements, and opposing Chinese penetration.
Critically absent from the review: any mention of encouraging revolutionary movements. Any mention of pursuing another government on the Allende model.
The KGB’s priorities shifted. Expand “confidential contacts” in existing regimes without the high-risk process of agent recruitment. Maintain clandestine contact with Communist parties. And — most significantly for the diaspora question — exploit the Chilean exile community as a permanent asset for active measures.
Operation TOUCAN, approved by Andropov on 10 August 1976, demonstrated how a defeated revolutionary movement becomes raw material for information warfare.
Service A produced a forged document — a letter from Chile’s intelligence chief, Manuel Contreras, to Pinochet, detailing plans to assassinate political opponents abroad. The forgery was accepted as genuine by major Western media. Jack Anderson, one of America’s most prominent journalists, quoted from the KGB forgery in his reporting.
The forgery worked because it had “a plausible basis in actual DINA operations.” DINA genuinely assassinated Orlando Letelier in Washington in September 1976. The forged letter described activities DINA was actually conducting. The KGB amplified and fabricated specific details, but the foundation was real.
The result: in 1976, the New York Times published sixty-six articles on Chilean human rights abuses. Four on Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge was killing 1.5 million people.
The Chilean diaspora also became an instrument for operations against Soviet dissidents. KGB files document use of “agents of influence among prominent Chilean émigrés” in Algeria and Mexico to disseminate forged communications. Chilean émigrés in Italy, West Germany, and France were inspired to issue pronouncements targeting Andrei Sakharov’s Nobel Prize.
A defeated diaspora, properly cultivated, becomes a tool. Their genuine grievances lend credibility to manufactured narratives.
The Rodina Society
The Rodina — “Motherland” — Society was founded in December 1975 as a front organization to promote “cultural relations with compatriots abroad.”
Its vice-president, P.I. Vasilyev, was a senior member of the FCD’s Nineteenth Department — the department dedicated specifically to Soviet emigre operations. Vasilyev headed a secret Rodina intelligence section. Through the Orthodox Church’s exarchates and parishes, the society maintained “spiritual ties with compatriots” across Europe, America, Asia, and Africa.
This was the institutional infrastructure for recruitment among emigre communities. Rossotrudnichestvo, established in 2008, inherited it — with modern infrastructure. 81 Russian Houses globally. Diplomatic cover. Formal coordination with the Foreign Ministry.
The tools changed. The strategic logic did not.
Post-Soviet Continuity
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Its intelligence apparatus did not.
The KGB’s First Chief Directorate became the SVR. Personnel transitioned. Decades of operational experience migrated into new institutional forms. The SVR explicitly “saw itself as the heir of the old FCD” rather than repudiating its Soviet past. The operational playbook did not need to be rewritten. It needed only to be updated for changed circumstances.
E.M. Kozhokin, born 1954, began his academic career during the Soviet period. He has worked continuously in Russian foreign policy institutions through every transition. When he writes about diaspora segmentation strategies in December 2025, he is writing within a tradition that stretches back a hundred years.
The December 2025 MGIMO document represents the latest iteration of a strategic framework refined continuously since 1925. Its recommendations — segment the diaspora into loyalists, opponents, and the exploitable middle; use culture and education to capture the apolitical majority; maintain silence against opponents to deny them visibility — are the accumulated institutional wisdom of a century of diaspora control, updated for the digital age and the specific challenges of the post-2022 Russian emigration wave.
The Odesa Connection
The MGIMO document’s reference to the Trade Union House is not casual. It is precise.
The document identifies Ukrainian refugees in Europe — particularly those from southeastern Ukraine concentrated in specific regions like Bavaria — as target populations. It cites the May 2, 2014 Odesa massacre specifically, referencing a young man whose friend burned to death and who “wants nothing to do with today’s Ukraine.” The document recommends reaching people like him.
This is significant because of what has been documented about May 2, 2014 itself.
My own investigations — published on this platform and on Substack — documented Sergey Glazyev’s role in orchestrating the events that led to the Trade Union House violence. Glazyev, an adviser to Putin, coordinated with local networks to engineer the confrontation between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian groups that culminated in the fire that killed 48 people inside the building.
The MGIMO document was produced by an institution that feeds directly into the same Russian state apparatus that Glazyev served. The document’s authors know what happened in Odesa. They know because the state they advise orchestrated it.
And now they recommend harvesting the grief of survivors for recruitment purposes.
The grief is real. The trauma is real. The alienation from Ukraine is real. The MGIMO document does not fabricate any of it. It identifies it, categorizes it, and recommends exploiting it.
Russian intelligence creates tragedies. Then it exploits the tragedies it created.
This pattern is documented across decades. Operation TOUCAN did not fabricate Chilean human rights abuses from nothing. DINA genuinely tortured, disappeared, and murdered thousands. The KGB built its forgeries on the foundation of real atrocities. The “Lisa case” in Germany exploited genuine anxieties about immigration. The KGB’s operations against Solzhenitsyn exploited his real personal failings and contradictions — not invented ones.
The Odesa case follows the same logic. The state creates the wound. Then it finds the people who are bleeding and offers them a narrative.
Six Men in Baltic Prisons
Between 2021 and 2026, at least six Russian diaspora activists in the Baltic states have been convicted and imprisoned. Sentences range from four to ten years. The cases share common elements: defendants organized cultural, commemorative, or political events; prosecutors allege these activities were conducted at the direction of or in coordination with Russian state organs; court documents detail intelligence-gathering activities or participation in information operations.
These prosecutions sit at the intersection of two competing narratives. Baltic governments, supported by EU and NATO intelligence assessments, characterize the defendants as instruments of Russian influence operations. Russian government representatives and some international human rights organizations characterize the prosecutions as persecution of minority rights activists — framing them within Russia’s broader narrative of “Russophobia” and persecution of Russian speakers in the former Soviet space. The very narrative the MGIMO document explicitly recommends cultivating.
The prosecutions themselves become raw material for the influence operations they are designed to counter. This is not a flaw in the Baltic approach. It is a feature of Russian operational design.
Each case reveals a different layer of the architecture.
Algirdas Paleckis — Lithuania — Six Years
Paleckis, a Lithuanian of Russian descent, was convicted in 2021 by the Siauliai District Court on espionage charges. The case centered on his activities related to the January 13, 1991 events in Vilnius — when Soviet troops killed fourteen people and wounded hundreds during an assault on the TV Tower during Lithuania’s independence movement.
Paleckis had long promoted the narrative that Lithuanian forces, not Soviet troops, were responsible for the deaths. Lithuanian courts and historical commissions rejected this claim thoroughly. Court documents show he was collecting private information on Lithuanian officials and prosecutors involved in the January 13 investigation, allegedly at the direction of Russia’s Federal Security Service. A witness, Deimantas Bertauskas, testified about Paleckis’s intelligence-gathering activities.
The Lithuanian Court of Appeal upheld the six-year sentence on May 6, 2022. The Russian Foreign Ministry characterized his arrest as “Russophobic.” EU Member of European Parliament Clare Daly raised concerns about press freedom.
The January 13 events remain emotionally charged in Lithuania. Paleckis did not manufacture the wound. He used it as a door. The alternative narrative about who killed people at the TV Tower served two purposes simultaneously: it maintained Russian influence among Lithuanian Russians sympathetic to Soviet-era narratives, and it provided a pretext for accessing sensitive information about ongoing judicial proceedings.
Historical grievance as entry point. Intelligence activity as function. This is the pattern the Mitrokhin Archive documents across dozens of operations. The MGIMO document recommends it as strategy.
Alexey Greichus — Lithuania — Four Years
Greichus was sentenced to four years imprisonment in 2021 on espionage charges linked to organizing Immortal Regiment commemorative events in Lithuania. The Lithuanian Prosecutor-General’s Office confirmed that Greichus worked with co-conspirator Mindaugas Tunikaitis in espionage activities. His organization of pro-Russian commemorative events was characterized as anti-state activities.
The Greichus case established critical legal precedent: organizing Immortal Regiment marches, when conducted in coordination with Russian state organs and combined with intelligence activities, constitutes prosecutable espionage under Baltic security law.
The case maps precisely onto the operational pattern documented in the Immortal Regiment’s trajectory. A grassroots cultural activity — family commemoration — co-opted by the state through formal registration in 2015 and embassy coordination. Then used as cover for intelligence operations. Greichus’s espionage activities were embedded within events that, on their surface, honored World War II dead.
The Immortal Regiment’s global coordination structure — Russian embassies organizing marches in 80+ countries, local compatriot organizations executing events — creates exactly the kind of distributed network within which intelligence activities can be embedded without detection. Until they are detected.
Yuri Alekseyev — Latvia — Five Years
Alekseyev, a journalist and activist, was convicted in Latvia in 2022 on charges of anti-state activities and assisting a foreign state in activities directed against Latvia. He was sentenced to five years.
The JPTi — Justice, Peace, Transparency Initiative — filed a UN complaint in November 2023 alleging Latvia’s use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation against him. The Latvian State Security Service’s 2022 annual report documented the intelligence environment within which Alekseyev’s activities were assessed.
His case sits at the sharpest edge of the enforcement problem. The line between advocating for Russian-speaking communities and collecting and transmitting information that benefits Russian state interests is not always clear. Russian intelligence operations are specifically designed to blur that line. The MGIMO document’s recommendations for reaching diaspora populations through cultural and educational programming — activities that are entirely legal — create precisely the kind of ambiguous space in which a journalist-activist can operate without ever knowing whether his work serves purposes beyond his own.
Alexander Gaponenko — Latvia — Ten Years
Gaponenko received the heaviest sentence among the documented cases: ten years imprisonment plus three years probation, imposed by the Riga District Court on January 27, 2026. The charges centered on aiding a foreign country against Latvia and inciting national hatred.
The evidentiary basis included Gaponenko’s participation in a Moscow conference titled “Ethnocide of Russian Compatriots in the Baltic States.” He allegedly spread disinformation about persecution of Russian speakers, bans on the Russian language, and school closures in Latvia. These claims — characterizing Baltic state minority policies as “ethnocide” — align precisely with narratives that the MGIMO document identifies as useful for maintaining cohesion among the loyalist segment of the diaspora. Russian state media has amplified the same narratives systematically since 2014.
The European Court of Human Rights had previously assessed Gaponenko’s situation. In its June 15, 2023 decision on Application 30237/18 — GAPONENKO v. LATVIA — the Court declared his application inadmissible, finding “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to justify his detention. Critically, the Court noted the context of Russian actions in Georgia and Ukraine in assessing whether Latvia’s security concerns were legitimate.
The ECHR endorsed the Baltic states’ security assessment framework. That matters. It means that activities which might be protected speech in peacetime can be assessed as security threats when conducted in the context of active Russian aggression against neighboring states. The geopolitical context changes the legal calculus.
Sergei Seredenko — Estonia — Five and a Half Years
Seredenko was convicted by the Harju County Court in September 2022. The Estonian Supreme Court upheld the conviction in June 2023. His sentence was five and a half years for actions against the state.
His case involved political activism and human rights advocacy that Estonian authorities characterized as anti-state activities conducted in collaboration with Russian entities. The JPTi filed a UN complaint in April 2025 alleging arbitrary detention. The Russian School of Estonia appealed to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Seredenko presented his activities as legitimate minority rights advocacy. Estonian intelligence assessed them as part of a broader Russian influence operation. The case represents the sharpest tension in the Baltic prosecutions: the same activities can be read as civic engagement or as operational cover, depending on whether Russian state coordination is present — and that coordination, by design, is difficult to prove.
Allan Hantsom — Estonia — Six and a Half Years
Hantsom’s case is the most operationally specific of the Baltic prosecutions.
Court documents detail his recruitment by Russia’s GRU military intelligence in October 2023. In December 2023 — two months after recruitment — he organized vandalism attacks against Estonian officials and journalists. One of those attacks targeted the car of Estonia’s Minister of the Interior.
Two convictions. Espionage, May 10, 2024. Vandalism, December 5, 2024. Total sentence: six and a half years. The New York Times reported on his case as part of a broader Russian sabotage campaign targeting Baltic and Northern European states.
Hantsom’s case documents the specific operational pathway from diaspora community member to active intelligence operative. GRU recruitment. Tasking. Operational direction. Physical sabotage. Court documents provide the granular evidence — recruitment communications, tasking instructions — that validates Baltic security services’ assessments while simultaneously demonstrating why these operations are difficult to detect before they escalate.
The pathway compressed what the Mitrokhin Archive documents across years into months. Identification through community participation. Recruitment through ideological alignment. Tasking through operational channels. The urgency of wartime operations accelerated the timeline. The logic remained identical.
What the Baltic Cases Reveal Together
Four patterns emerge when the cases are examined as a set.
Russian intelligence exploits genuine grievances. Baltic Russian-speaking communities have legitimate concerns about language rights, historical memory, and cultural preservation. Russian state operations do not manufacture these concerns. They identify them, cultivate them, and embed intelligence activities within organizations that address them. Paleckis’s January 13 activism began with a real historical wound. Gaponenko’s minority rights advocacy began with real policy disputes. Seredenko’s human rights defense began with real legal concerns. Each case started with something genuine before Baltic security services assessed it as compromised by Russian intelligence coordination.
Cultural and commemorative activities provide operational cover. The Greichus case demonstrates that Immortal Regiment organization can serve as a platform for espionage. The MGIMO document’s recommendations for expanding cultural programming among diaspora communities — Sunday schools, commemorative events, educational programs — create exactly the kind of distributed activity network within which intelligence operations can be embedded without detection.
The escalation pathway is documented. Hantsom’s case shows the progression from community activist to GRU operative to physical sabotage. This is the contemporary equivalent of the long-term cultivation documented in the Mitrokhin Archive, compressed into months rather than years by wartime urgency.
The narrative exploitation is bidirectional. Every Baltic prosecution becomes evidence in Russia’s “persecution” narrative. Russian state media and the Foreign Ministry characterize each case as persecution of Russian minorities — generating precisely the narrative that the MGIMO document identifies as useful for maintaining diaspora cohesion. The prosecutions themselves become raw material for the influence operations they are designed to counter.
Seven Operational Parallels
The December 2025 MGIMO document, read against the Mitrokhin Archive, reveals operational parallels so precise they function less as coincidence and more as institutional DNA.
First: Intelligence services lead. Diplomacy follows.
The Mitrokhin Archive documents that Foreign Minister Gromyko was “a cautious man who opposed any serious confrontation with the United States.” Third World operations were “led by the KGB.” KGB officers made first contact with Castro. KGB officers cultivated Allende. The Santiago residency maintained a secret channel to Chile’s president that bypassed — and actively competed with — the Soviet ambassador.
The MGIMO document operates at the same nexus. Rossotrudnichestvo reports to the Foreign Ministry but its leadership lineage — Primakov grandson as head — and its EU-sanctioned activities indicate intelligence coordination. The leaked January 2026 document was reportedly prepared “for SVR and Presidential Administration.” Azerbaijan closed Rossotrudnichestvo specifically on intelligence grounds. Czech authorities expelled its personnel alongside GRU-connected diplomats. Host nations assess the agency as an intelligence platform operating under diplomatic cover. This is the Soviet model, preserved.
Second: Front organizations as recruitment platforms.
The Latin American Friendship Society, headed by Torres Espinosa in the 1960s, provided cover for FSLN recruitment. The Rodina Society, founded 1975, promoted “cultural relations with compatriots abroad” while its vice-president headed a secret intelligence section. VOKS and SSOD performed the same function across multiple decades. Each followed the same logic: establish institutional legitimacy through cultural programming, use that legitimacy to access target populations, recruit from within.
The MGIMO document recommends leveraging existing cultural institutions — Russian-Armenian, Russian-Kyrgyz, and Russian-Tajik Slavic Universities, Orthodox Sunday schools, Rossotrudnichestvo cultural centers — as platforms for reaching the diaspora’s apolitical middle. The recommendation to maintain Sunday schools as “apolitical” while using them to “preserve Russian identity” mirrors the Rodina Society’s dual mandate exactly. The Immortal Regiment’s trajectory demonstrates the same pattern in real time.
Third: Long-term cultivation without formal recruitment.
Allende was cultivated from 1952 to 1970 — eighteen years — without ever being formally recruited as an agent. He was a “confidential contact.” The relationship was maintained through personal attention, financial support, fulfillment of personal requests. Gifts. Money. Sanatorium stays for his wife. The currency was not payment for services. It was relationship maintenance.
The February 1974 Politburo review made this approach explicit. The KGB was directed to expand “confidential contacts in Latin American regimes without resorting to the more risky process of agent recruitment.” Formal agent recruitment created vulnerability — the agent could be turned, exposed, or lost. Confidential contacts provided access with lower operational risk.
The MGIMO document’s three-tier diaspora strategy embodies this logic at population scale. It does not recommend coercing or formally recruiting anyone. It recommends creating conditions in which sympathetic individuals voluntarily engage — attending cultural events, enrolling children in Sunday schools, participating in educational programs — while gradually absorbing narratives aligned with Russian state interests. The wealthy diaspora recommendation — offering millionaires “opportunities to participate in programs at the universities from which they graduated” — mirrors the Allende model precisely. Cultivation through personal attention and fulfillment of desires. Without formal transactional relationship.
Fourth: Exploiting genuine grievances for manufactured narratives.
Operation TOUCAN did not fabricate Chilean human rights abuses from nothing. DINA genuinely tortured, disappeared, and murdered thousands. The Letelier assassination was real. The forged Contreras-to-Pinochet letter was believable because it described activities DINA was actually conducting. The KGB amplified what existed.
The “baby parts” disinformation campaign — claiming wealthy Americans bought Latin American children for organ transplants — was published in 50+ countries and remained current in Mexican press as late as 1990. Not because it was true. Because anxieties about American imperialism in Latin America were genuine.
The KGB’s operations against Solzhenitsyn exploited his real personal failings and contradictions. The campaign succeeded partly because Solzhenitsyn genuinely alienated some Western intellectuals.
The MGIMO document’s reference to Ukrainian refugees follows the same pattern. The grief of the young man whose friend burned to death in Odesa is real. His alienation from Ukraine is real. The document recommends harvesting these genuine emotions — not by fabricating the trauma but by providing narratives that channel it toward Russian strategic objectives.
The Lisa case in Germany operated identically. Genuine anxieties about immigration amplified through fabricated incident, mobilized through Rossotrudnichestvo networks.
Fifth: Institutional culture of optimistic reporting.
Andropov’s February 1973 memorandum to the Politburo on Chile was, according to Christopher Andrew, characteristic: “Its chief purpose was to impress the Politburo with the KGB’s ability to gain clandestine access to a foreign leader and exert influence on him. Characteristically, it avoided mentioning any problems which might take the gloss off the KGB’s success.”
Privately, the Centre was increasingly worried about Allende’s survival. Andropov gave no hint of those concerns to the Politburo.
Leonov confirmed the systemic nature of this distortion. FCD Service 1 — Intelligence Analysis — had “only 10 per cent of importance” compared to CIA’s equivalent directorate and was regarded as “a punishment posting.” One FCD officer admitted: “In order to please our superiors, we sent in falsified and biased information, acting on the principle ‘Blame everything on the Americans, and everything will be OK.’”
The cost of this culture was not abstract. Khrushchev’s misjudgment on Cuban missile placement was based partly on fabricated intelligence from an “unidentified NATO liaison officer” — a source that did not exist. Assessment filtration ensured that alarming, critical information did not reach the top. The system was designed to tell leadership what it wanted to hear. When leadership made decisions based on what it heard, people died.
The MGIMO document’s confident assertions — its recommendations presented as implementable strategies rather than tentative proposals — carry the same institutional fingerprint. Documents produced for SVR and Presidential Administration consumption are incentivized to demonstrate capability. The optimistic framing, the casual treatment of complex sociological dynamics, the assumption that cultural programming can effectively shift political attitudes among large populations — these are institutional habits. The same habits that led Moscow to pour money into Chile right up until the day Pinochet’s tanks rolled.
Sixth: Diaspora as permanent strategic asset.
Chilean emigres were mobilized for anti-Sakharov operations after the coup. Emigre organizations were penetrated across decades. The KGB files document use of “agents of influence among prominent Chilean émigrés” to disseminate forged communications targeting Soviet dissidents.
The MGIMO document treats the diaspora explicitly as a target population — not citizens who have moved abroad but a permanent strategic resource to be cultivated and activated. The Coordinating Councils of Compatriots in countries like the United States and Kuwait organize events under embassy guidance. This is the contemporary version of the Rodina Society’s global reach through Orthodox Church exarchates and parishes.
Seventh: Cultural and educational programs as access points.
VOKS organized cultural exchanges. The Rodina Society ran programming through church parishes. Each provided institutional legitimacy and access to target populations.
The MGIMO document recommends expanding library collections with technology and medical content. Introducing diaspora members to Soviet intellectual figures. Leveraging university programs. Maintaining Sunday schools. Using ArtdocMedia documentary archives. All of it designed to maintain cultural connection without triggering the security scrutiny that explicitly political activities would attract.
Eighth: Transforming operational failures into propaganda assets.
When Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia in October 1967, Castro declared October 8 “Day of the Heroic Guerrilla Fighter.” A military defeat became a martyrdom. The mythology of Che — revolutionary hero, selfless warrior — was constructed from an operation that had failed completely. The KGB’s investment in Latin American revolutionary movements had produced a corpse and a legend in roughly equal measure. The legend proved more useful than the living operative would have been.
Allende’s death followed the same pattern. The coup that ended the Chile operation also produced a martyr. Allende’s suicide on September 11, 1973 transformed a failed confidential contact into a symbol of resistance against American imperialism — a symbol that Soviet and post-Soviet propaganda has exploited for decades.
The MGIMO document does not address martyrdom explicitly. It does not need to. The pattern is institutional knowledge. Operational failures, when managed correctly, produce propaganda assets that outlast the operations themselves.
The South Caucasus: Where the Playbook Is Being Tested
The MGIMO document devotes more analytical attention to Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan than to any other region outside the former Soviet Union. The reason is operational urgency. Russian influence in all three countries is eroding. The diaspora question becomes critical when direct political control fails.
Armenia: Dismantling the Infrastructure
Armenia spent decades as one of Russia’s most reliable allies. That relationship is collapsing.
The Robert Lansing Institute’s November 2025 analysis characterized Russian intelligence networks in Armenia as “dense” across military, political, clerical, media, and business sectors. A penetration depth built over decades of alliance. The Mitrokhin Archive documents KGB operations in the Armenian diaspora dating to the Soviet era.
In August 2024, Armenia ended Russian FSB oversight at Yerevan airport. The FSB had maintained access to passenger data and screening capabilities for decades — a surveillance platform covering all arrivals and departures. The Armenian National Security Service confirmed the change. A direct severance of an intelligence-sharing arrangement that had persisted since the Soviet period.
Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service annual report for 2025, published in January, highlighted external recruitment attempts targeting Armenian nationals for destabilization operations. The report’s unusual specificity about Russian recruitment methodologies indicated that Armenian counterintelligence had identified active operations — not merely theoretical threats.
In December 2025, the Armenian National Security Service indicted Russian citizens on espionage charges. The first such public prosecution in recent memory. JAM News reported the case involved allegations of intelligence gathering for Russian services.
In November 2025, Armenia established a dedicated foreign counterintelligence service. The Robert Lansing Institute noted that this service was specifically designed to counter Russian networks — a remarkable public acknowledgment that the intelligence relationship had shifted from alliance to adversarial.
The MGIMO document identifies the Russian-Armenian Slavic University as a “concentration of Russian-speaking intellectuals” that can serve as a platform for maintaining influence. Orthodox Church cultural institutions are identified as channels for sustained engagement. The document’s Armenia recommendations reflect a fundamental shift: influence must now be maintained through cultural and educational programming rather than state-to-state cooperation.
Armenia is dismantling Russian intelligence infrastructure piece by piece. Moscow’s response is to shift the battlefield from governments to diaspora communities.
Georgia: The Relocant Influx
Georgia became the primary destination for Russians fleeing the post-invasion domestic environment in 2022. The MGIMO document identifies Georgia as receiving 15.5% of post-invasion emigrants.
The post-2022 Russian relocant population in Georgia is fundamentally different from established diaspora communities. These are primarily younger, educated, urban Russians who left partly in protest against the invasion — many actively anti-Putin. They are not natural targets for pro-Kremlin messaging.
But the MGIMO document does not aim at them with propaganda. It aims at them with culture. Sunday schools. Film screenings. Educational programs. Institutional connections that maintain identity without demanding political loyalty.
The three-tier framework applies directly. The relocant population contains loyalists — a small minority. Opponents — a significant segment, particularly among those who left in protest. And the crucial apolitical middle — Russians who left for economic or lifestyle reasons and remain politically disengaged. The document’s recommendations for reaching this middle group through “culture and education” while “avoiding potentially sensitive political issues” are clearly calibrated to this population.
The Russian Club in Tbilisi, directed by Nikolay Sventitski — who also directs the Griboedov Theater, Georgia’s oldest Russian-language theater — serves as a cultural hub for Russian speakers. Sventitski has publicly denied Rossotrudnichestvo funding, claiming support from a Georgian businessman. Civil Georgia reported in April 2025 on concerns about the Club’s activities and funding sources. The Georgian State Security Service’s 2024 report noted foreign intelligence targeting of youth, diaspora communities, and foreign residents.
The Russian Club case illustrates the ambiguity that characterizes diaspora cultural institutions. It may be entirely independent. It may be partially coordinated with Russian state objectives. It may be fully integrated into an influence operation. The MGIMO document’s recommendation to leverage cultural institutions as platforms for reaching the apolitical middle suggests that even genuinely independent institutions can serve Russian strategic interests if their programming maintains the cultural ties and identity frameworks that Russian influence operations exploit.
Rossotrudnichestvo maintains operations in Sukhumi, in occupied Abkhazia, and in Tskhinvali, in occupied South Ossetia. Both territories have been under Russian military occupation since 2008. These operations maintain Russian cultural influence in areas that the Georgian state cannot access.
Azerbaijan: The Clean Cut
Azerbaijan’s closure of Rossotrudnichestvo on February 6, 2025 represents the most decisive action taken by any post-Soviet state against Russian cultural diplomacy infrastructure.
Caliber.az had documented the intelligence function nine days earlier. The investigation reported that Rossotrudnichestvo staff “usually accredited at the embassy” maintained cover positions while conducting intelligence work. The outlet referenced scandals previously documented in Denmark and Cyprus involving similar allegations against Rossotrudnichestvo personnel.
The closure was administratively simple. Azerbaijan chose to enforce a registration requirement that had been overlooked for years. The same diplomatic cover that enabled intelligence operations also provided a legitimate administrative mechanism for termination.
Azerbaijan’s decision reflects the broader deterioration of Russian influence in the South Caucasus. With Armenia moving toward Western alignment and Georgia’s political trajectory remaining contested, Azerbaijan’s closure eliminates one of Russia’s remaining institutional footholds in a region where Moscow’s influence has historically been exercised through precisely the kind of cultural and diplomatic infrastructure that the MGIMO document recommends maintaining.
Regional Synthesis
The South Caucasus illustrates both the strategic logic and the operational vulnerabilities of Russian diaspora influence operations. Armenia’s counterintelligence reforms, Azerbaijan’s institutional closure, and Georgia’s ambiguous trajectory collectively demonstrate that the model documented in the MGIMO document — cultural programming as a substitute for political alignment — faces significant headwinds in the region where it is most urgently needed.
The fundamental tension is visible here. The operations designed to maintain influence require institutional presence — cultural centers, universities, churches. But that institutional presence creates identifiable targets for host-nation counterintelligence. The Mitrokhin Archive documents the same tension in Soviet operations. Operation HORIZON in Lithuania, the Rodina Society’s exposure, the eventual penetration of VOKS networks — institutional presence enabled operations until the institutional presence itself became the basis for counterintelligence action.
Where direct political control is weakening, influence through diaspora communities becomes the fallback position. The South Caucasus is where that fallback is being tested — and where it is encountering the most organized resistance.
The Enforcement Gap
Here is the problem.
The activities that constitute the bulk of Russian diaspora operations are entirely legal in every jurisdiction where they occur. Cultural programming. Educational outreach. Sunday schools. Film screenings. Library enrichment. Social media engagement. None of these activities violate any law anywhere.
The intelligence activities embedded within them — agent recruitment, information collection, active measures — are criminal. But the line between the two is invisible by design.
The KGB understood this. The Archive documents the deliberate choice to maintain “confidential contacts” rather than formal agents. Allende cooperated voluntarily. He was never bound. The relationship existed below the threshold of formal foreign-state direction. The MGIMO document reproduces this logic at population scale. It does not recommend coercing anyone. It recommends creating conditions in which sympathetic individuals voluntarily engage — and gradually absorb narratives aligned with Russian state interests.
This enforcement gap is not accidental. It is a deliberate feature of Russian operational design, documented in both the Mitrokhin Archive and the MGIMO document. The KGB’s use of front organizations with genuine cultural programming, the embedding of intelligence activities within legitimate institutional activities — all designed to maintain plausible deniability while maximizing operational access.
The EU Framework
The EU’s primary legal instrument against Russian diaspora operations is the sanctions regime imposed on July 21, 2022 through Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270. Asset freezes and travel bans on Rossotrudnichestvo and Russkiy Mir Foundation on grounds of “supporting actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine” and facilitating intelligence activities.
The sanctions represent a significant legal development. For the first time, cultural diplomacy agencies have been sanctioned on intelligence grounds without requiring proof of specific espionage operations. The EU’s determination was based on aggregate assessment of institutional function rather than prosecution of individual operatives. This creates a precedent that could be applied to other Russian cultural institutions if intelligence assessments warrant.
But sanctions impose limitations rather than prohibitions. Rossotrudnichestvo continues to operate in non-EU jurisdictions. The sanctions do not extend to the broader network of cultural institutions, Orthodox churches, and educational programs that the MGIMO document identifies as influence platforms. The enforcement gap persists within the sanctions framework.
Baltic Precedents
The Baltic prosecutions represent the most aggressive legal response to Russian diaspora operations in any jurisdiction. Three precedents matter.
The ECHR’s inadmissibility decision in GAPONENKO v. LATVIA endorsed the Baltic states’ security assessment framework. By finding “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to justify detention in the context of Russian actions in Georgia and Ukraine, the Court acknowledged that geopolitical context can inform the legal assessment of diaspora activism. Activities which might be protected speech in peacetime can be assessed as security threats when conducted in the context of active Russian aggression against neighboring states.
The Greichus prosecution established that organizing events at foreign state direction — even cultural and commemorative events — can constitute espionage when combined with intelligence-gathering activities. This creates legal exposure for anyone organizing diaspora events in coordination with Russian state organs, regardless of the events’ ostensible cultural character.
The Hantsom prosecution documented the full operational pathway from diaspora community member to active intelligence operative. The specificity of the GRU recruitment and tasking documentation in court records gives prosecutors in other jurisdictions a template for building similar cases.
The limitations of the Baltic approach are equally significant. Prosecutions require evidence of specific criminal acts. The vast majority of individuals targeted by the MGIMO document’s recommended activities will never cross the threshold into prosecutable behavior. They will attend cultural events. Enroll children in Sunday schools. Participate in educational programs. All entirely legal. All serving Russian influence objectives without any individual committing a crime.
The Orthodox Church
The Russian Orthodox Church’s role in diaspora operations presents particular legal and jurisdictional challenges. Churches enjoy special legal protections in most Western jurisdictions — freedom of religion, tax exemption, and in some cases exemption from foreign agent registration requirements.
The Mitrokhin Archive documents extensive KGB penetration of the Orthodox Church hierarchy. Metropolitan Aleksi — later Patriarch Aleksi II — was a KGB agent, codenamed DROZDOV. Church parishes served as platforms for diaspora contact.
The MGIMO document’s recommendation to maintain Sunday schools within Orthodox churches while keeping them “apolitical” exploits precisely this protected status. Church-based programming is difficult to subject to the same security scrutiny as state-funded cultural institutions because of the religious liberty protections afforded to ecclesiastical organizations.
Estonia’s 2023 law requiring the Estonian Orthodox Church to sever ties with the Moscow Patriarchate addresses the most visible institutional vector. Latvia has taken similar legal action. But these approaches are legally contentious and politically sensitive. They address the formal institutional connection while leaving informal church-based networking and programming largely beyond legal reach.
Foreign Agent Registration
The United States’ Foreign Agents Registration Act requires disclosure of activities conducted “at the direction of or for the account of” a foreign government. The EU’s proposed Anti-FARA regulations, under development since 2022, would create a parallel European framework.
The challenge is definitional. FARA and its equivalents require that activities be conducted at foreign-state direction. The MGIMO document’s recommended approach — leveraging cultural institutions, educational programs, and church-based activities that are not formally directed by the Russian state — is specifically designed to avoid triggering foreign agent registration requirements. The activities are genuinely cultural. The individuals participating are not formally agents. The Russian state’s influence is exercised through institutional design and narrative framing rather than direct operational direction.
Allende was never a KGB agent. He was a “confidential contact” who cooperated voluntarily. The distinction was not merely semantic. It reflected a deliberate operational choice to maintain activities below the threshold of formal foreign-state direction while maximizing influence.
The MGIMO document applies the same logic at population scale. Cultural institutions receive no direct operational tasking from the Russian state. They receive recommendations. Funding flows through channels that maintain institutional independence on paper. The influence is exercised through the architecture of the programming, not through explicit direction.
This is the gap that existing legal frameworks cannot close.
What Needs to Happen
The enforcement gap between the scope of Russian diaspora operations and the reach of existing legal frameworks requires a multi-layered response.
At the criminal prosecution level, the Baltic precedents provide a viable template. The key evidentiary requirement is documentation of specific foreign-state direction — recruitment communications, funding transfers, tasking instructions. Intelligence services in countries that have identified Russian diaspora operations should prioritize building prosecutable cases where such evidence exists, while accepting that the majority of influence activities will remain below the criminal threshold.
The administrative and sanctions framework needs expansion. The EU precedent of sanctioning Rossotrudnichestvo and Russkiy Mir on institutional grounds — without requiring prosecution of specific operatives — can be applied to other organizations where aggregate evidence supports an intelligence function assessment.
Regulatory frameworks require re-examination. Host nations should assess whether existing foreign agent registration laws adequately capture the activities described in the MGIMO document. The gap between “activities conducted at the direction of a foreign government” and “activities that serve foreign government objectives through institutional design” may require legislative clarification, particularly for organizations that receive funding from Russian state-affiliated sources while maintaining formal independence.
The Orthodox Church dimension requires careful navigation that balances religious liberty protections with security concerns. Transparency requirements — disclosure of funding sources, registration of educational programs — may be more appropriate than the blanket institutional restrictions that Estonia has pursued.
None of these measures, individually or collectively, will close the enforcement gap entirely. The gap is structural. It exists because the activities that constitute the bulk of Russian diaspora operations are legal activities in democratic societies. Attending cultural events. Enrolling children in schools. Reading books in libraries. These are things free societies permit because they must. Russian intelligence has understood this for a hundred years.
What This Document Actually Is
The MGIMO document is not a secret. It is a strategy paper produced by an institution that operates at the junction of Russian academic research, foreign policy, and intelligence planning. Its authors are identified. Its recommendations are specific. Its target populations are named.
It is also a confirmation.
Western intelligence services have documented Russian diaspora operations for decades. Journalists have reported on them. Baltic courts have convicted individuals connected to them. The EU has sanctioned the agencies conducting them. The Mitrokhin Archive provided the historical foundation. Country after country has closed Rossotrudnichestvo offices or expelled its personnel.
The MGIMO document confirms what all of that evidence already showed: Russia views its global diaspora not as citizens who have moved abroad but as a permanent strategic asset. A population to be segmented, cultivated, and activated in support of state interests.
The document’s authors — led by Kozhokin, a man who has worked in Russian foreign policy institutions since the Soviet period — are writing within a tradition that stretches back a hundred years. The tools have changed. Social media replaces samizdat. Rossotrudnichestvo replaces VOKS. Digital surveillance supplements physical surveillance. The strategic assumptions have not changed.
Segment the diaspora. Cultivate the middle. Silence the opposition. Use culture as the access point. Embed intelligence within legitimate activity. Maintain relationships below the threshold of formal recruitment. Exploit genuine grievances for manufactured narratives. Report optimistically to leadership.
The young man whose friend burned to death in the Trade Union House in Odesa — the one the document identifies by his grief and his alienation — is one data point in a framework that spans a century and covers the globe. He is not unique in being targeted. He is illustrative of how targeting works.
The KGB cultivated Salvador Allende for eighteen years before he won the presidency of Chile. Eighteen years of gifts and money and personal attention and carefully managed information. The relationship produced intelligence that went directly to the Politburo. It produced influence over Chilean foreign policy. It produced, for a time, a Marxist president elected through the ballot box — the first anywhere in the world.
When it failed — when Pinochet’s coup ended the experiment on September 11, 1973 — the KGB did not abandon the Chilean diaspora. It weaponized them. Their genuine grief, their real rage at Pinochet’s atrocities, became raw material for active measures operations that shaped Western media coverage for years.
A hundred years later, the same institution — reorganized, renamed, updated for the digital age — produces a document that identifies a young man in Europe by his grief and recommends harvesting it.
The harvest has not stopped. It has simply found new fields.
Chris Sampson is an independent journalist and documentary filmmaker based in Kyiv. He is Editor-in-Chief of NatSecMedia and the author of “Hacking ISIS.” His investigations into Russian operations in Ukraine, including the Odesa Trade Union House fire, are published on this platform.
Sources
Andrew, Christopher. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. New York: Norton, 1999.
Andrew, Christopher. The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World. New York: Norton, 2005.
Arctic Institute. “NATO’s Polar Pressure Point: Svalbard Archipelago Russian Challenge.” November 27, 2025. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/natos-polar-pressure-point-svalbard-archipelago-russian-challenge.
Armenian Foreign Intelligence Service. Annual Report 2025. Published January 2026. Coverage: Armenian Weekly, January 28, 2025. https://armenianweekly.com/2025/01/28/a-reflection-on-armenias-foreign-intelligence-service-annual-report.
Armenian National Security Service. Indictment of Russian citizens on espionage charges. December 2025.
Atlantic Council. “Thinking Foreign Policy in Russia: Think Tanks and Grand Narratives.” November 2019. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/thinking-foreign-policy-in-russia-think-tanks-and-grand-narratives.
Caliber.az. “The Secrets of the Russian House in Baku.” January 28, 2025. https://caliber.az/en/post/the-secrets-of-the-russian-house-in-baku.
Civil Georgia. Reporting on Russian Club Tbilisi. April 2025. https://civil.ge/
Czech Security Information Service. Annual Report 2021. https://www.bis.cz/public/site/bis.cz/content/vyrocni-zpravy/en-annual-report2021.pdf.
Estonian courts. Hantsom espionage conviction. May 10, 2024.
Estonian courts. Hantsom vandalism conviction. December 5, 2024. Coverage: New York Times, December 5, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/world/europe/estonia-vandalism-russia-sabotage.html.
Estonian Internal Security Service. Assessment on Russian recruitment through education. October 3, 2023.
Estonian Supreme Court. Seredenko appeal upheld. June 2023.
EUvsDisinfo. “The Immortal Regiment: State-Appropriated Memories for Mobilisation.” May 7, 2025. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/the-immortal-regiment-state-appropriated-memories-for-mobilisation.
Eurointegration. Reporting on Moldova Rossotrudnichestvo closure. November 27, 2025. https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2025/11/27/7194761.
European Court of Human Rights. Gaponenko v. Latvia. Application no. 30237/18. June 15, 2023. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-225555.
European Union. Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270. Official Journal of the European Union. July 21, 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2022:193:FULL&from=EN.
Georgian State Security Service. Annual Report 2024.
German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Annual Report 2015. https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/EN/2015/annual-report-2015.pdf.
Harju County Court. Seredenko conviction. September 2022.
Institute for European Integrity. NGO watchlist entry on Russkiy Mir Foundation. September 18, 2023. https://www.iei.ngo/ngo-watchlist/russkiy-mir-foundation.
JAM News. “Russian Citizens Accused of Spying in Armenia: What We Know about One Case.” December 2025. https://jam-news.net/russian-citizens-accused-of-spying-in-armenia-what-we-know-about-one-case.
Jamestown Foundation. “Armenia Ends Russian Oversight at Yerevan Airport as Security Concerns Persist.” August 2024. https://jamestown.org/armenia-ends-russian-oversight-at-yerevan-airport-as-security-concerns-persist.
Journal of Cold War Studies. “The ‘KGB Wanted List’ and the Evolving Soviet Pursuit of Defectors.” 2024.
JPTi. UN complaint regarding Alekseyev detention. November 2023. https://www.jpti.ch/post/un-complaint-on-latvias-use-of-slapps-against-journalist-yuri-alekseev.
JPTi. UN complaint regarding Seredenko detention. April 2025.
Latvian courts. Alekseyev conviction. 2022.
Latvian State Security Service. Annual Report 2022. https://vdd.gov.lv/uploads/materials/33/en/annual-report-2022.pdf.
Lithuanian Court of Appeal. Paleckis sentence upheld. May 6, 2022.
Lithuanian Prosecutor-General’s Office. Greichus prosecution statement. 2021.
MGIMO Institute for International Studies. Analytical note on diaspora strategy. December 2025. Obtained by OC Media. https://oc-media.org/leaked-russian-report-details-influence-strategy-for-diaspora-in-south-caucasus. Full text via Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/986642632/Prospects-for-Interaction-With-Representatives-of-the-Russian-Diaspora-in-Modern-Geopolitical-Conditions-Recommendations-for-Russian-Policy-ENG.
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. “Russian Information Influence Operations in the Nordic-Baltic Region.” https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/download/RUS-Info-Influence-Operations-in-Nordic-Baltic-DIGITAL-V2.pdf
Proekt Media. “Russian Diplomatic Students Are Recruited by Intelligence Services.” October 17, 2019. https://www.proekt.media/en/article-en/russian-diplomatic-students-are-recruited-by-the-intelligence-services.
Riga District Court. Gaponenko sentence. January 27, 2026.
Robert Lansing Institute. “Why Armenia Is Creating a Foreign Counterintelligence Service: Aims, Drivers, and Consequences.” November 26, 2025. https://lansinginstitute.org/2025/11/26/why-armenia-is-creating-a-foreign-counterintelligence-service-aims-drivers-and-consequences.
Rossotrudnichestvo. News release on Immortal Regiment coordination. May 7, 2025. https://rs.gov.ru/news/programmy-povysheniya-kvalifikaczii-dlya-prepodavatelej-russkogo-yazyka-kak-inostrannogo-i-predmetov-na-russkom-yazyke/.
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Briefing referencing global Immortal Regiment marches. May 6, 2025. https://mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/2014182.
Russian School of Estonia. Appeal to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe regarding Seredenko.
Siauliai District Court. Paleckis conviction. 2021.
United24Media. “Russia’s Immortal Regiment March Was Meant to Honor World War II Dead. Now It Glorifies War.” May 1, 2025. https://united24media.com/anti-fake/russias-immortal-regiment-march-was-meant-to-honor-world-war-ii-dead-now-it-glorifies-war-7972.
United States. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Hearings on Soviet Active Measures. July 1982. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/25769819747.
United States. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report, Book II. April 26, 1976. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-94755-ii.pdf.
United Kingdom. Defence Intelligence. Assessment on Russian Immortal Regiment march cancellations. April 22, 2023.
Washington Post. “How Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency Became the Covert Muscle in Putin’s Duels with the West.” December 27, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/how-russias-military-intelligence-agency-became-the-covert-muscle-in-putins-duels-with-the-west/2018/12/27/2736bbe2-fb2d-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html.
Weiss, Michael. “The SVR Plan for Influencing the Russian Diaspora.” Substack. January 24, 2026.
Wilson Center. Analysis of SSOD restructuring and KGB control. August 8, 2013. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116816.
Wilson Center. “Operation HORIZON: A KGB Counterintelligence Operation against the West.” June 30, 2021.