The intelligence services of the three Baltic states, Sweden, and the Czech Republic hold differing assessments regarding a potential Russian attack.

These warnings followed statements to parliament by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who said intelligence assessments indicated that Russia could mount an attack against NATO territory with drones or missiles in the coming months as part of efforts to prove that “Article 5 is theoretical rather than practical.”

French President Emmanuel Macron also described Tusk’s warnings as “logical and well documented,” and summoned party leaders and 2027 presidential candidates to an urgent meeting in Paris on Friday.

Among other topics, the meeting addressed intelligence information concerning the growing threat from Russia.

In separate interviews with The Guardian newspaper, three European intelligence officials shared their views on the potential threat that could emanate from Moscow.

Michal Koudelka, head of the Czech Republic’s BIS security service, suggested that alongside increased drone activity, a small-scale incursion into NATO territory bordering Russia could also form part of the Kremlin’s plans.

“This is possible. It could involve a limited attack, false-flag provocations, or a large-scale influence campaign,” Koudelka said in a rare interview at the agency’s headquarters in Prague.

Stating that this scenario could unfold in “months, not years,” Koudelka added that “many people are doing their utmost to ensure it does not happen.”

Officials in the three Baltic countries bordering Russian territory, however, are acting more cautiously regarding the prospect of an invasion or another serious escalation.

They cite the strain on Moscow’s resources in Ukraine and warn that exaggerating the likelihood of an attack could play into the Kremlin’s hands.

Normunds Mežviets, director general of the Latvian State Security Service (VDD), said in an interview at the agency’s headquarters in Riga: “We see no indications that an attack is imminent.”

While Mežviets acknowledged signs that Moscow is preparing to take more decisive steps in Europe, he stated that it remains unclear whether these plans are merely part of a destabilisation strategy:

“Whether they have direct and concrete plans, or whether this is simply part of their general efforts to spread fear and uncertainty in Western society, remains an open question.”

Having criticised Western Europe for years for being soft on Russia, Baltic politicians now find themselves in a curious position: fearing that talk of an imminent invasion could harm their societies and economies, they are telling certain Western leaders to remain calm in their public messaging.

On Saturday, Jonatan Vseviov, secretary general of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, condemned the recent “social media panic” regarding a potential attack, writing on X:

“If there is reason to fear an attack, rest assured: we will state it clearly. Until then, stay calm, carry on with your lives, and support Ukraine.”

Mežviets said that, overall, Western Europe waking up to the threat from Russia is a positive development:

“Before 2022, we constantly warned our Western European partners about the threat from Russia, but our voices were largely ignored. In 2022, our partners’ approach changed. They said the Baltics and the Poles had been proven right.”

Neither Mežviets nor Koudelka wished to discuss what concrete intelligence might have been obtained regarding Russia’s alleged plans for the coming months.

Nor did they comment on whether a surprise visit to Moscow last month by CIA Director John Ratcliffe: during which he also stopped in Riga: was undertaken partly to warn the Kremlin about the dangers of attacking NATO.

Following that visit, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied rumours that Russia would attack NATO, saying: “This has nothing to do with reality, and it has nothing to do with the intentions of the Russian Federation.”

Koudelka argued that Russia’s current tactic is to “escalate to de-escalate,” stating that the Kremlin is probing vulnerabilities in Western societies to diminish their support for Ukraine’s war effort.

“They believe that if they escalate enough, European countries will decide not to support Ukraine,” Koudelka said.

Thomas Nilsson, head of the Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service, said in an interview on the margins of a conference held in Riga: “I have seen no signs of serious consideration in Moscow regarding genuine negotiations. In my assessment, they still believe they can achieve their strategic objectives; therefore, they are merely engaging in negotiation theatre.”

All three intelligence chiefs stated that, whatever else happens, Russia’s sabotage campaign in Europe is likely to intensify in the coming months.

Nilsson described the recent armed drone incident at Leipzig airport, which German authorities attributed to Russian intelligence, as a “game-changer”:

“Sending an armed drone into a busy airport in the heart of Europe… If attacks involve the potential loss of life or the disruption of critical infrastructure with immense consequences for society, I believe that is a game-changer.”

Mežviets noted that Russia has shifted from random acts of sabotage and arson aimed at inducing panic toward specific targets connected to Western support for Ukraine. “We see them trying to target railway infrastructure and infrastructure providing support to Ukraine. We currently observe a shift toward defence industry targets,” he said. “If you do that, the psychological operations effect is already achieved; thus you accomplish both at once,” he added.

Nilsson stated that several objectives lie behind the recent intensification of Russian sabotage activities: reducing support for Ukraine, creating divisions within NATO, and unsettling European populations.

“In my view, Moscow would like nothing more than for NATO to engage in endless discussions about Article 4 consultations while taking no concrete steps,” the Swedish official said.

Koudelka noted that another effect of the sabotage campaign is that it strains the resources of intelligence services, as suspicions frequently linger even when incidents stem from other causes.

“Now, every fire or every malfunction must be investigated by intelligence services as a potential terrorist attack, and that is a good outcome for them,” the intelligence chief said.

Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader Alice Weidel has claimed that Die Linke (the Left Party) will “shoot the rich and expropriate capitalists”.

Appearing live on ZDF television on Sunday, when elections were held in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD leader spoke about the Berlin vote.

Weidel argued that the Left Party had become the strongest element in Berlin “because of the CDU’s ‘firewall’ policy”.

Weidel then asserted that the Left Party wanted “to expropriate, to shoot the rich, to pressure capitalists through rent caps; in other words, to implement elements of planned socialism”.

ZDF presenter Shakuntala Banerjee appeared taken aback and, stating that this claim needed to be “verified”, asked: “‘Wants to shoot the rich’?”

In fact, Weidel appears to be pointing to the words of Berlin member Sandra L. at an event organised by the Left Party in 2020. At the time, a video containing her remarks circulated online.

The incident occurred at a party strategy conference held in Kassel. While the debate was actually on energy policy, the Left Party member said: “The energy transition is necessary even after the revolution. And even if we shoot the top 1% of the rich, we will still want to heat our homes.”

The Left Party’s then co-chair Bernd Riexinger, who was present at the time, made a joke about forced labour and replied: “I just wanted to add: we won’t shoot them; we will make them do useful work.”

Sandra L. later retracted her words in a statement to dpa, saying: “This completely contradicts my political views; I am disgusted by violence against people.”

Riexinger also later expressed regret for not rejecting the comment “immediately and categorically”.

No election manifesto of the Left Party contains a call for the “execution” of the rich or the super-rich. The party states that it is committed to the rule of law and the “free democratic basic order”.

Every adult in Britain would need to pay an extra £590 a year in tax to fund planned public infrastructure investments worth £258 billion.

Sir John Armitt, chair of the private sector-led Public-Private Partnerships Commission, stated that delivering vital projects, such as Thames Water’s long-delayed White Horse reservoir, would require the government to increase infrastructure investment by two-thirds—equivalent to around £25 billion annually until 2030—if financed through public funds.

The crisis surrounding the early release scheme has highlighted the UK’s need for greater prison capacity, while Ofwat has warned that population growth and climate change could leave England facing a shortfall of billions of litres of water per day over the next 25 years.

Armitt, who was the final chair of the National Infrastructure Commission before it was replaced by a new agency, noted that the government’s constrained financial position means its fiscal rules would be “put in jeopardy” if the UK attempted to finance infrastructure spending through additional borrowing.

According to the report, such an approach would add approximately £7 billion to debt interest costs by 2030, £14 billion by 2035, and £23 billion by 2040.

Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves had altered the fiscal rules to treat capital investment differently from day-to-day spending.

However, the required additional borrowing would still increase overall national debt.

Armitt, who recommended the creation of an OBR-style body for infrastructure, said:

“Those who believe that taxpayers and the public sector can close this gap alone have not looked closely enough at the public finances. If debt interest were a government department, it would be the fourth-largest in Whitehall. The UK faces a fundamental choice: do we want to provide the infrastructure that the public expects and the country needs, or do we not?”

A rise in government bond yields over the past two weeks has narrowed the government’s fiscal headroom, intensifying pressure on Reeves’s successor, John Healey, to balance the public books as Prime Minister Andy Burnham targets “growth in every postcode”.

The commission’s report, delivered by consultancy Bradshaw Advisory, also revealed that the UK has the lowest level of investment among G7 nations.

The report argues that reducing the cost and delivery times of infrastructure projects requires a comprehensive overhaul of the UK planning system, along with the elimination of political risk aversion and other regulatory obstacles.

According to the findings, rail projects in the UK take 50% longer than the international average, whilst delivery timelines for nationally significant projects doubled between 2009 and 2019.

To expedite construction and mitigate the threat of bureaucracy, the report proposes the introduction of a “parliamentary approval vote” for critical national infrastructure projects. Armitt characterised the current landscape as an “appalling cycle” of legal challenges.

The commission noted that uncertainty drives up the cost of infrastructure projects by generating “over-engineered designs to withstand any potential legal challenge and repeated consultations”.

Armitt called for greater pragmatism in Whitehall regarding the role of private investors and developers, who are more efficient than the public sector at delivering infrastructure because they must generate a return on their investments.

He also argued that the available capital pool is vastly larger. UK pension funds hold trillions of pounds in assets, yet only a small fraction is allocated to infrastructure projects.

Armitt said infrastructure investors have recently raised concerns that government efforts to increase public control have dampened their appetite for investing in the UK.

Arguing that this shift would deter investors, Armitt pointed to the windfall tax imposed on North Sea oil.

Armitt added that investors, particularly pension funds, “want long-term certainty and confidence”.

A separate Oxford Economics report commissioned last week by transport groups and infrastructure investors revealed that the UK has lagged behind every major economy except Greece on investment over the past 25 years.

Jon Phillips, chief executive of the Global Infrastructure Investor Association, said:

“Private capital is mobile by nature… at a time when the German, French, and Canadian governments are actively seeking to attract international investors, the UK risks losing ground.”

A government spokesperson said they welcomed “ideas to build the infrastructure needed across the UK”:

“Over the course of this Parliament, we have made progress by publishing the 10-year infrastructure strategy, increasing public investment by £120 billion to crowd in private finance, and delivering reforms to planning, major infrastructure, and regulation to give businesses and local leaders the stability they need to make long-term decisions.”