Russia turning temporarily occupied territories into criminal enclaves – Ukraine's intelligence

“Temporarily occupied territories” means Ukrainian regions that Russian forces control during the war, rather than territory recognized in the report as permanently belonging to Russia. The wording emphasizes that this control is imposed and contested. It also focuses attention on the civilians living under Russian military and administrative power.

They are described as “criminal enclaves” because ordinary governance is breaking down. The report lists illegal arms and explosives trading, alcoholism among Russian invaders, street brawls, violent clashes, cybercrime, and embezzlement of budget funds. It also describes repression by security agencies and threats from soldiers accused of war crimes.

The label matters because insecurity is affecting both residents and the occupation system itself. Falling funding, poverty, shortages, fear, and declining living standards are driving people to leave. Moscow is responding with more propaganda and tighter oversight, showing that it sees the territories as difficult to control.

Ukraine’s intelligence service describes disorder at several levels. Crime includes the illegal trade in arms and explosives, rising cybercrime, and the embezzlement of budget funds. Alcoholism among Russian invaders is linked to street brawls and violent clashes. These problems appear alongside weakening local administration and reduced Russian funding.

Residents also face repression and insecurity. The report mentions a strict counterintelligence regime, threats of violence from war criminals serving in the Russian army, and pressure from security agencies. It says people live in constant fear, while alternative communication channels are being restricted. These measures limit both personal safety and access to information.

Deprivation is worsening the crisis. The report cites poverty, devastation, unemployment, and shortages of food, medicines, fuel, and basic necessities. Together, these conditions are accelerating the exodus of residents and fueling negative attitudes toward the Russian invaders, despite increased positive propaganda.

The article does not state how much Ukrainian territory Russia occupies or how many people remain under Russian control. Any answer to this question therefore requires outside estimates, and the totals vary depending on whether Crimea, pre-2022 occupied areas, and recently captured districts are counted.

A commonly used wartime estimate is that Russia controls about 18% of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory, including Crimea and parts of four eastern and southern regions. Population estimates are less certain because millions of residents have fled, been displaced, or cannot be independently counted. A broad estimate is roughly 5–6 million people living under occupation.

These figures should be treated as approximate and date-specific, not as numbers supplied by this article. The report’s focus is the condition of occupied communities: insecurity, declining services, repression, shortages, and departures. Those changes make the population total especially difficult to measure accurately.

Control depends partly on functioning institutions, public compliance, and access to basic necessities. The report describes the opposite: poverty, devastation, unemployment, shortages, corruption, and violence. When people cannot obtain food, medicine, fuel, or work, confidence in the authorities declines. Fear and repression may enforce obedience, but they do not create stable support.

The report gives concrete examples. Illegal weapons trading, violent clashes, cybercrime, and embezzlement create insecurity and drain public resources. Russia’s economic problems are also reducing funding for the so-called administrations. At the same time, threats from soldiers and security agencies push residents to leave, shrinking the population that occupation authorities seek to manage.

These pressures can produce a cycle of weaker control. Less funding can mean fewer services, while worsening conditions increase hostility and resistance to propaganda. Russia is therefore increasing positive messaging and tightening oversight, suggesting the Kremlin sees instability, corruption, and unreliable local officials as continuing risks.

The article uses “occupation administrations” for the bodies Russia has installed to govern temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories. “Collaborators” are people from those territories who hold positions in those imposed authorities. Their role is practical: they help deliver Russian policies, manage local institutions, and present occupation rule as administration rather than military control.

Yet the report says Moscow does not fully trust even the most pro-Russian officials. It specifically links the occupation system to embezzlement of budget funds and says Russia intends to tighten oversight of the administrations, including collaborators. This suggests the Kremlin fears that local officials may misuse resources, fail to follow orders, or weaken Russian control.

The distrust also reflects broader instability. Funding is declining because of Russia’s economic problems, while crime, shortages, repression, and public hostility are increasing. In that setting, officials must manage worsening conditions while serving Moscow’s interests. The Kremlin’s response is closer supervision, not greater confidence in local administrators.

Propaganda helps an occupying power frame daily life in its preferred way. The report says Russia is increasing positive messaging about so-called socioeconomic projects and birth-rate promotion programs. Such themes can present occupation authorities as providers of services and future opportunities, even while poverty, shortages, and insecurity continue.

The key mechanism is control over both messages and access. The invaders are seeking to isolate residents from alternative communication channels, including channels run by people and organizations designated as foreign agents in Russia. If competing information becomes harder to reach, official narratives face fewer direct challenges. Residents may hear more about planned projects and less about criticism or outside accounts.

This does not guarantee belief, especially because the report says living standards are falling and negative attitudes are growing. But it can narrow public discussion and make independent verification more difficult. Propaganda combined with information isolation is therefore presented as another tool for maintaining control amid worsening conditions.

Under international law, military occupation occurs when one state exercises effective control over territory without gaining lawful sovereignty over it. Annexation is different: it is a claim that the territory has been incorporated into the occupying state. An occupying power cannot make annexation lawful simply by announcing it or holding administrative procedures under military control.

An occupier must protect civilians and treat them humanely. Its responsibilities include maintaining public order and safety, ensuring food and medical supplies where needed, and supporting essential services. It must also respect existing laws and institutions unless security needs make limited changes necessary. Repression, forced displacement, collective punishment, and pillage are prohibited.

These rules provide the legal framework for assessing the conditions described in the report. Claims of shortages, violence, repression, and embezzlement raise questions about civilian protection and administration. The article itself does not provide a legal assessment or document specific court findings, so these duties come from established international humanitarian law.