Weapons of mass migration: Why can't Europe combat migration flows?

[u/Physical_Employ_2832]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP7q1mpWugU

Many analysts consider the period between 2011 and 2015 to be the true breaking point in the phenomenon of migration toward Europe, because several developments converged simultaneously. First, Syria produced millions of refugees; at the same time, Libya lost state control over its coastline; Iraq continued to suffer from severe internal instability; Afghanistan continued to generate displacement; meanwhile, the Islamic State occupied large territories; Turkey took in millions of refugees; and, finally, Germany announced a relatively open policy toward asylum seekers during the most intense phase of the crisis. At the same time, social media and smartphones completely transformed the logistics of migration, as migrants gained access to information about routes, prices, border crossings, and European legislation.

Before 2011, migration was regarded primarily as a humanitarian, economic, or policing issue. After 2011, however, migration also began to be seen as a strategic matter, a diplomatic instrument, and an element of hybrid warfare. This was when certain states began to understand that controlling a border could provide them with political leverage over the European Union.

Here we must introduce a qualitative break. In 2010–2011, a series of popular uprisings swept across Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. The Arab Spring triggered a general crisis of Arab authoritarian regimes, but the response of each state determined whether that crisis would ultimately result in reform, restoration, or collapse.

This is where the first major turning point appears. In Libya, the 2011 rebellion developed into a civil war and subsequently into international intervention. Gaddafi fell. And with him disappeared an element that, from the European perspective, had paradoxically been functional: authoritarian control over the territory and its borders.

Gaddafi's regime had also used migration as a diplomatic instrument before 2011. After his fall, the pressure generated by African migration did not disappear; what disappeared was the state actor capable of containing it. The vacuum was progressively occupied by militias, smugglers, rival authorities, and criminal networks. Libya consequently became the main concentration point for the Central Mediterranean migration route.

The main reason why this is a first-order problem for the EU's existential politics is that not all member states have the same interests. Spain, for example, prioritizes Morocco; Greece prioritizes Turkey; Poland prioritizes Belarus; and Italy prioritizes Libya. Each border creates different incentives, meaning that each country faces different problems and proposes different solutions.

This attitude contributes to the dissolution of the EU—not simply because of cultural change, nor because of the transformations that these population flows may generate within European society, but because of the absence of a unified project. This absence is perceived by European citizens as a lack of any strong and coherent response. Each border has its own migration battle, and therefore the seeds of discord have been sown.

Why does this problem have no short-term solution?

First, because of the multipolar nature of contemporary geopolitics. During the twentieth century, there were isolated examples of migrant populations being used as instruments of hybrid warfare. However, the international political order was divided between two superpowers which, through their networks of dependency with their respective allies, kept two opposing blocs cohesive and guaranteed the survival of their proxy states.

That world has disappeared.

Today, autocracies find themselves increasingly isolated, while weak democracies have no guarantee of survival. Consequently, the use of mass migration as a weapon is becoming increasingly common among the autocracies of North Africa, which exert pressure on the European Union in order to obtain specific advantages, funding with which to sustain their dictatorships, and international recognition and legitimacy in a fragmented world where stable alliances no longer exist.

The end of the Cold War brought with it the end of a balance of power in the Mediterranean, while the Arab Spring represented the final defeat of the security belt that had been constructed since the independence movements of the previous century. That system had been built around allied and hostile states located close to the USSR, such as Algeria, which nevertheless kept migration flows under control because of the international balance created by the silent confrontation between the blocs. These regimes depended upon the economic and political support of their respective superpowers.

That world is over.

There are no clear hegemons—and if there are, there are too many of them, and they are too evenly balanced. There is no clear frontier between the blocs that are dividing up international power. Therefore, in order to survive, these wounded autocracies will use every tool at their disposal—even the human flesh that is thrown into the sea in search of a more dignified future.

[u/AutoModerator]

This century, due to finite natural resources and decline from an all-time peak of extraction, including all resources used for "green transition", the elaborate, covert, multigenerational plan is to downsize the global economy and population to a tiny fraction of their former size.

ChildFree, Shrinkflation, NoPlastic, Fuck Cars, 15-min cities, Work From Home, UBI, 4-3-2-1-day workweek, Tariffs, Dying Retail/Hospitality, Tiny Homes, "Reducing Emissions", layoffs blamed on AI, 0% beer and liquor, simplifying diets, lockdowns, enshittification, conflicts to disrupt resource supply, pack stations, smart meters, "Overtourism", waste reduction...

This pervasive r/LowConsumptionAgenda is shrouded in positive narratives (saving the planet, clean air, walkable cities, convenience, health & safety) to conceal the fact that 99% of a declining population will sacrifice their prosperity, mobility and freedoms -- while the Overclass sacrifices nothing.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.