offered, by NGOS involved in service provision, to the CPT or international human rights organisations, have formed the basis of damning reports of the Greek detention system and have been used as evidence in Greek courts but also in the European Human Rights Court. However, the question remains can the involvement of non-state actors inside detention do good without doing any wrong (Fisher, 1997)? As I have shown in this chapter, by unpacking the micropolitics, complexities and interconnections between the state and these actors, service provision amounted to limited gains as opportunities might permit within existing power relations inside detention. Elsewhere I have tried to tackle the question of whether researchers or practitioners can challenge the multiple drivers of detention policies and practices (Fili, 2018b). To return to this question here, I want to conclude by offering a tentative answer. When I conducted interviews with practitioners, I always asked two final questions, driven by my desire to find hope ‘What do you think should change?’ and ‘Is change possible?’. Unfailingly, every time my interviewees would stumble for a few minutes, unable to find a clear answer. Feelings of exasperation, tiredness and futility were widespread. ‘Something was improved, something else was destroyed. It was a constant fight to achieve certain obvious things. (Interview, Athens, 2018). NGO staff in this field are indeed overworked further restricted by the lack of available funding to organise an advocacy strategy for political change. As a former practitioner painfully admitted, ‘There is so much work needed for a public condemnation to stir a wider mobilisation, that a small team of lawyers cannot handle. So, it never happens.’ (Interview, Athens, 2018) In this context, practitioners found it impossible to envision alternatives. ‘I don’t know what the solution is. But it’s utopic to think that there will be justice. You can’t win the system, or change it’ (Interview, Athens, 2018). However, the acceptance of the futility of any attempt toward system-level change has undoubtedly contributed to the continuation of detention in insidious ways, rendering alternatives outside of the current scenario of border control unimaginable (Tyler et al., 2014). As Kalir and Wissink (2016) have argued regarding deportation practices in the Netherlands, non-state actors in Greece fill intentional gaps in the provision of services inside detention but have strategically shied away from challenging the foundations on which detention has been built, i.e., fear, racism and bureaucracy, unshaken. 173