EU finds no proof foreign actors triggered Ceuta crisis after Spain accuses Russia and Israel

Accusations of foreign destabilization

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez attributed the mass arrival of 80,000 migrants in Ceuta on 30 and 31 July to foreign destabilization efforts. During a radio interview on Cadena SER on 31 August, Sánchez suggested that Russia, Israel, and an international reactionary network sought to undermine Spain because of its foreign policy stances. He argued that Madrid's positions on the conflict in Gaza and the Russian invasion of Ukraine made the country a target for coordinated disinformation campaigns. Both foreign governments quickly rejected the accusations. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar labeled the claims blatant lies, while Russian authorities also dismissed any involvement in the border surge. The statements followed weeks of heightened domestic scrutiny regarding the management of the enclave's border.

It is evident that if Russia gets involved in disinformation on this issue or Israel also disinforms by criticizing the Government of Spain, it will not be because they care about migration in Spain or in Europe, but because of the political positions we are maintaining, which I believe are brave, regarding the genocide in Gaza or regarding Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

European Union response to the claims

The European Union diplomatic corps responded to the claims by drawing a distinction between causing the migration event and exploiting it afterward. On 1 September, spokespersons for the European External Action Service stated that no evidence indicates foreign state actors provoked the influx into Ceuta. While the diplomatic service acknowledged ongoing online activity linked to Moscow, it stressed that the initial border pressure was not triggered by external disinformation. The European External Action Service emphasized that migration remains a sensitive issue across the entire continent, making it a frequent target for campaigns designed to fuel divisions and increase polarization. The diplomatic service regularly conducts information environment assessments during crises affecting member states and shares findings with national capitals when their security interests are at stake.

In the case of Ceuta, we have seen attempts by Russia to take advantage of the crisis on the internet. However, we do not have conclusive evidence to suggest that the crisis itself was caused by the disinformation of foreign state actors.

Intelligence findings on Russian digital activity

An internal European External Action Service intelligence report submitted to the Spanish government in August detailed the mechanics of Moscow's digital campaign. According to Spanish state security sources, Russian foreign information manipulation and interference began on 31 July, after the human influx had already occurred. The operation generated roughly 2,000 messages across several digital networks, representing a lower volume and shorter duration than Russian campaigns observed during other European crises. Rather than targeting North African audiences to encourage migration, the messaging focused on European citizens to promote narratives that European Union border policies are failing. The analysis confirmed that the messaging aimed to amplify existing social alarm rather than coordinate border crossings.

Diplomatic actors and communication channels

The European Union dossier identified Russian activity operating across three distinct tiers, including official diplomatic channels, Kremlin-controlled state media, and proxy online accounts. Among the diplomatic figures named in the report were Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova and Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko. European security analysts tracked these statements alongside coordinated activity on digital platforms as tensions rose in Ceuta over the presence of migrants in public spaces. Spanish authorities relied on this dossier when formulating their public statements, while omitting direct references to Morocco's role in the border events. The findings reflected European Commission efforts to monitor foreign interference mechanisms established after earlier geopolitical crises in eastern Europe.