LONDON, July 21 — Counterintelligence is not a passive shield but a weapon built on infiltration, surveillance, and the slow dismantling of an adversary’s spy networks. Its modern form — complete with dedicated government agencies and systematic techniques — took shape in the late 19th century, forged in the crucible of colonial rivalry and the so-called Great Game between the British and Russian empires. The mechanics of counterintelligence and its primary subfield, counterespionage, are straightforward in theory: protect your own intelligence program from the opposition’s service.
In practice, the task requires gathering information and conducting activities to prevent espionage, sabotage, assassinations, or any intelligence action conducted by, for, or on behalf of foreign powers, organisations or persons. Many states run multiple organisations focusing on different aspects — domestic, international, counter-terrorism.
The institutional form varies: the United States places counterintelligence within its Federal Bureau of Investigation, a police structure; the United Kingdom created an independent body, MI5; Canada, meanwhile, groups intelligence and counterintelligence under a single agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Origins in the Great Game
The strategic rivalry between the British Empire and the Russian Empire across Central Asia between 1830 and 1895 — the Great Game — provided the essential background. To counter Russian ambitions in the region and the potential threat to the British position in India, the Indian Civil Service built up a system of surveillance, intelligence and counterintelligence. Rudyard Kipling’s 1901 spy novel ‘Kim’ popularised this shadowy conflict, portraying it as an espionage and intelligence struggle that ‘never ceases, day or night’.
But the Great Game was only part of the story. Colonial rivalries among major European powers and the accelerating development of military technology also drove the establishment of dedicated intelligence and counterintelligence organisations.
The Evidenzbureau, founded in the Austrian Empire in 1850, took on from the late 19th century the role of countering the Pan-Slavist movement operating out of Serbia. In France, the Dreyfus affair of 1894–1906 upended military counter-espionage; responsibility passed in 1899 to the Sûreté générale, an agency originally responsible for order enforcement and public safety, overseen by the Ministry of the Interior. The Okhrana, initially formed in 1880 to combat political terrorism and left-wing revolutionary activity throughout the Russian Empire, was also tasked with countering enemy espionage.
Its main concern, however, was the activities of revolutionaries working from abroad. It set up a branch in Paris to monitor their activities.
The Okhrana used covert operations, undercover agents, and ‘perlustration’ — the interception and reading of private correspondence. It became notorious for its use of agents provocateurs who often succeeded in penetrating revolutionary groups.
Integrated agencies take shape
The British government took a different route, founding the Secret Service Bureau in 1909 as the first independent and interdepartmental agency fully in control over all government counterintelligence activities. That institutional innovation did not come out of nowhere. Intense lobbying pushed the British government to authorise a new intelligence section in the War Office, initially designated MO3 and later MO5, in 1903.
Working undercover from a flat in London, the head of the section ran both counterintelligence and foreign intelligence operations. On closer reading, the evolution of counterintelligence reveals a pattern: the state builds its defensive apparatus by mirroring the tactics of its enemies.
The Okhrana’s agents provocateurs, the Evidenzbureau’s surveillance of Pan-Slavists, the Indian Civil Service’s quiet monitoring in Central Asia — each innovation was a response to a perceived threat, and each became a template for the next. What to watch next: as state-sponsored cyber-espionage and influence operations proliferate, the old playbook of perlustration and agent penetration is likely being adapted for digital networks. The question is whether the institutional forms — police-integrated, independent, or intelligence-grouped — are agile enough to keep pace.
Sources
{“@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “NewsArticle”, “headline”: “FBI, Allied Agencies Adapt to Counter Foreign Espionage Over Time”, “description”: “LONDON, July 21 — Counterintelligence is not a passive shield but a weapon built on infiltration, surveillance, and the slow dismantling of an adversary’s spy…”, “datePublished”: “2026-07-21T09:30:00+00:00”, “author”: {“@type”: “Person”, “name”: “Beatrice Ferrari”}, “publisher”: {“@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “InfoPulse Today”, “url”: “https://newsfeed.infopulsetoday.com/”}, “citation”: [{“@type”: “CreativeWork”, “url”: “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence”}]}
