Europe’s intelligence and security agencies don’t have the luxury of operating in a broadly calm world. Significant geopolitical pressure is being applied by the informal axis of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, while relations with the US have frayed.
That is bringing change. In recent weeks, Germany has approved a draft law allowing its agencies – the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) and Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) – to take a more active role in responding to Russia’s hybrid threats. Sweden, too, has taken steps to create a new civilian-led agency (the Sveriges utrikes underrättelsetjänst or UND), taking powers from the traditionally military service.
Europe’s relationship with its traditional ally, the United States, is stretched and there have been reports that European agencies are withholding intelligence. Last year Erik Akerboom, Director General of the Netherlands’ AIVD agency, suggested his service was increasingly hesitant to share intelligence material with US counterparts, whilst the UK and other US allies suspended some sharing of intelligence over drug strikes in the Caribbean.
This is by no means a rupture; the UK’s Five Eyes relationship is untouched, and Europe’s ability to truly go it alone is unlikely whilst all European signals intelligence (SIGNT) agencies rely to some extent on the US National Security Agency.
Yet the ground is clearly moving, which begs the question of just how good the continent’s spy agencies are and how ready they are to confront sophisticated enemy espionage agencies. In July, the French magazine L’Express ran its own league table — the equivalent of the Ballon d’Or or the Eurovision Song Contest — of European spy agencies. Based on interviews with 60 intelligence professionals from 25 countries, including 18 former agency heads as well as former CIA and Mossad officers, each participant selected a top five organizations, awarding five points to first place and one point to fifth.
L’Express rankings are fascinating. The survey put the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) first on 251 points, followed by the French Direction générale de la Sécurité extérieure (DGSE) on 169. The Netherlands’ AIVD came in at third (97 points), with Ukraine’s SBU and HUR fourth (77 points). Germany’s BND came fifth with 62 points. Several countries — to borrow Eurovision language — received “nul points”. Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Croatia joined that crowd. Hungary — considered by some to have been a Russian Trojan horse under the Orbán regime — was singled out for criticism.
Who’s up and who’s down in the world of spies is difficult to judge. International comparisons are also hard; DGSE, for instance, covers human and signals intelligence, whereas SIS is largely the former (though it does engage in technical activity).
While the survey focused on human intelligence (HUMINT), it’s worth noting that a very significant amount of intelligence now comes from data, satellites and — to a lesser extent — telecommunications, which are often the responsibility of SIGINT organizations operating independently. This area needs very significant improvement for Europe; even Britain’s GCHQ, regarded as a significant global player, cannot match the scale and capabilities of the NSA.
Still, L’Express survey was useful – and here’s why. It offers a rare view of Europe’s espionage landscape.
The fact that SIS came top was perhaps no real surprise; it shows first and foremost that perception matters; this is, after all, the agency (very imperfectly depicted) in the James Bond films and novels. Perceptions of effectiveness, longevity and history are all things that shape spy fact. The view of the SIS is partly shaped by its cooperation with European partners through two world wars, a Cold War, and the War on Terror. Whilst the service’s early Cold War efforts had mixed success (the SIS and other key elements of Whitehall employed a number of notorious traitors), it developed a reputation for success and professionalism, broadly enhanced during the War on Terror and crises in Ukraine and elsewhere.
It’s also no surprise to see SIS and DGSE as the top two. Both represent post-imperial powers who remain global intelligence players. Whilst the UK has the “special relationship” with the US, the enduring relationship has been with France, going back to 1912 when the first “C” Mansfield Cumming met his French counterpart in the Deuxième Bureau.
French agencies have come and gone, and some periods of cooperation have been more intensive than others, but Franco-British cooperation has been persistent. Speaking alongside Nicolas Lerner, then head of the DGSE, in November 2024, SIS’s Chief Sir Richard Moore talked of bonds “forged in the darkest moments of the 20th century”, reshaped “for the challenges of the 21st.” SIS’s former Deputy Chief, Gerry Warner, described his service as “the last penumbra of… Empire.” So too DGSE for France.
Though European agencies cannot match the CIA for budget and manpower (DGSE has about 7,000 staff and MI6 half that number), they still retain global connections. DGSE’s coverage of parts of Africa stands out especially. For the UK, whilst military hard power has been on the wane, the intelligence community — through links to the US, Europe, and the wider world — still punches above its weight.
One observation lost on many commentators on the L’Express poll is that modern-day intelligence is a team sport. This may seem counterintuitive to many. In the world of state-to-state competition, spying is viewed as part of a state’s national self-interest. Seemingly friendly agencies also spy on each other.
Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service (FE) was accused of helping the US NSA spy on Germany. Germany’s spies have been accused of similar activity against the US. But few intelligence agencies can be all-rounders; each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each has unique capabilities that others need (Ukrainian agencies’ ability to strike and sabotage inside Russia is one example). Even the US intelligence community — despite what some in the administration might think — needs allies. Unique collection assets, geography, or differing appetites for risk matter. The mutual threat of Russia helps too.
Whilst SIS and DGSE took the gold and silver in the L’Express survey, many of Europe’s smaller agencies were high up the table. Take, for example, the AIVD. The Dutch service played an important role in supporting Ukraine and developing wider bilateral relationships. Though unable to compete for size and resources with others, the AIVD shows that focusing on core strengths can prove significant in the longer term. Historically, groundwork by allies has enabled wider success; the initial recruitment of the KGB’s Oleg Gordievsky (widely described as MI6’s most valuable post-war agent) was enabled by Danish spies. Below the top five in the L’Express poll came Sweden, Norway, Estonia, Poland and Denmark. Each has a long history of activity against Russia and has “skin in the game” from their position on NATO’s Northern flank.
Some countries are less constrained in their professional approach. Kyiv’s struggle for national survival means that its agencies act as mini-Mossads in assassinating Russian officials and striking strategic assets, as Operation Spiderweb in June 2025 or the targeting of Russia’s energy infrastructure shows. By contrast, even SIS’s work in the “effects” space (what others call covert action) is largely in the online space.
Last year, UK commentators noted that SIS’s new “C”, Blaise Metreweli, talked about the legendary wartime escapades of the Special Operations Executive (SOE), created in 1940 to inspire sabotage and resistance in Axis-occupied territory. We’re not about to see SOE redux, for reasons I’ve previously outlined; we simply don’t need to when dealing with Russian shadow warfare in Europe. Ukraine’s services can achieve far more. For the UK and other European agencies, they can continue to hurt Russia by maintaining intelligence support for Ukraine.
The L’Express league table is useful in showing that even Europe’s smaller agencies play a significant role in the bigger game and that they strengthen the European team. Given the world in which they now operate, that’s critical. Everyone is useful when facing rising threats.
Dr Dan Lomas is Assistant Professor, International Relations, at the University of Nottingham. He is co-authoring a forthcoming history of the Secret Intelligence Service for Georgetown University Press.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
