When the President said this week that U.S. intelligence agencies have ‘run amok’, he was offering the statement in part to explain why he was nominating John Ratcliffe as the next Director of National Intelligence. The President told reporters “I think we need somebody like that in there. We need somebody strong that can rein it in because as I think you’ve all learned the intelligence agencies have run amok.”
Ratcliffe is already facing scrutiny from both political major parties over his lack of intelligence experience and that lack of experience, even more than the President’s comments about the IC, is troublesome to national security experts, particularly those who have focused on Russia and understand the threat to U.S. national security.
Cipher Brief Expert Rolf Mowatt-Larssen came out strongly this week against the President’s expected nominee warning sharply against what he sees as the politicization of Intelligence. He tweeted this week that ‘Trump is making an argument that the CIA and FBI cannot be trusted and must be put under tight (his) control.’
Mowatt-Larssen is former Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy and spent more than two decades at CIA. He says the Russians are worried about the state of affairs with the U.S. He should know. For more than ten years, he has been a part of – and has led - track two talks with the Russians on a number of security-related issues.
Here’s a breakdown of what he believes is the real Russian threat.
The Cipher Brief: How do headlines like this generally play back in Moscow? Is Russian Intelligence somehow able to exploit things like this to their advantage?
Mowatt-Larssen: To a certain extent the Russians enjoy any amount of chaos in the United States, particularly disputes between what they would call the special services, the security apparatus, and the executive branch. So they probably find that to be a good development from their perspective. But I also think there are people in Russia who are deeply worried about the volatility and unpredictability of this period in America. The Russians have never been happy when U.S. presidents are weak and unpredictable. I think they may have some regrets about Donald Trump.
The Cipher Brief: Everything we’ve seen in the headlines makes it appear as if there is a close relationship between Presidents Trump and Putin, though we all know the headlines never tell the whole story. If you set aside for just a moment the issue of an active Russian disinformation campaign targeting the next U.S. Presidential election, what does the rest of the U.S.-Russian relationship look like today?
Mowatt-Larssen: Well, I think everyone all the way up to President Putin is concerned that they essentially can't stop this free fall in U.S.-Russian relations, which is not really in their interest. You have arms control falling apart literally as we speak. The INF agreement is going away soon, and as I understand it, the START strategic nuclear weapons talks may also collapse, the extension of the START treaty. That's not good for Russia, that's not good for the world.
We've made no progress in narrowing our differences in Europe with regard to NATO and Ukraine, because those are interrelated issues. Cooperation in the Middle East is a mess. We like to think of the Russians sitting in a cat bird seat in Syria and elsewhere, but I think the Russians are far more sober about the volatility of that situation, and they need a resolution in Syria, which they can't have without some coherent U.S. policy. If you look across the spectrum of issues, it's not really in Russia’s interest, if you're looking at it as a Russian, for the U.S. to be experiencing unprecedented chaos, particularly in foreign policy.
The Cipher Brief: If you look at how diplomacy and foreign policy is being conducted in the U.S. today, which is radically different than it's ever been done before, does Russia have any ability to change the way that they've done foreign policy and domestic policy? Or are they just constrained to the Russian way of doing things?
Mowatt-Larssen: I lead a track two dialogue with the Russians, and we've been meeting for over 10 years. And through my interactions with that group, I am absolutely convinced that the Russians would like to see a halt in the free fall in U.S.-Russian relations and see a better relationship and more cooperation across the board in certain areas, at least a narrowing of differences. Now in the meantime, it's in their interest to continue to sow chaos because there's really no disincentive for them to not continue things like election meddling, because there's no incentive for cooperation. There's no interest in cooperation from the U.S. side.
But you have to remember that Putin knows, and the Russian establishment knows, that they're dealing from a standpoint of strategic weakness. They're never going to be the Soviet Union. Their defense budget is about 10% of ours, their economy is minuscule compared to ours. They have maximized their tactical advantages around the world. They've actually been very coherent, consistent and effective in carrying out Russian policy interests around the world, but they can't strategically compensate for their lack of size and ability to contest the U.S. or China for that matter in the long-term. So they need cooperation. They're pursuing cooperation with the Chinese, and I would argue, I think the Russians understand deep down that in the long-term they have to find a way out of this terrible situation with the United States, particularly as it pertains to nuclear weapons and in other areas.
The Cipher Brief: Knowing what you do, what advice would you have for them on how to do that?
Mowatt-Larssen: We try to pursue that every time we talk. We'll be meeting again shortly on cyber. It's an initiative we've put together to allow some high-level military and intelligence officers to get together to discuss how we could potentially think through the beginnings of some sort of negotiation in cyber. One reason we've gotten encouragement to proceed with this is because there's absolutely no activity in this area between our two countries on a government to government level. So, a track two is a good place to explore options. But I think it's emblematic of what we're talking about, which is that it's not really in either side's interest to continue to interfere in one another's domestic affairs. Not when you look at cyber as a strategic threat that we both face in certain areas, whether it's our critical infrastructure, our banking systems. Neither of us really want to see this escalate into an all-out cyber confrontation, so to avoid that, we have to talk. The only question is who takes the first step and what is the basis for a productive beginning in that area? I would apply the same reasoning to every other issue.
The Cipher Brief: You definitely think a little differently than many of your colleagues on issues regarding Russia.
Mowatt-Larssen: I'm a little different than many of my colleagues, and that's fine. I totally respect their viewpoint, but I'm not a believer in the confrontational stance idea toward the Russians. I was declared persona non grata in 1996. I can't even travel back to Russia. I'm a confirmed cold warrior. I'll never lose my credentials. But now I'm one of the leading advocates of cooperation because it's easy to be confrontational. It's easy to say the Russians are bastards or they have no human rights or they poison people or whatever. But that's not really the issue. You suggested that I think of it a little differently but let me put that on a really strategic level.
Basically, when you consider why I came out so strong against Ratcliffe or the politicization of U.S. intelligence or the growing lack of independence, I even suggested that maybe (CIA Director) Gina (Haspel) and (FBI Director Christopher) Wray are client directors right now. That's not really a knock at them or their integrity or their loyalty. Our system is unfortunately starting to move towards this sort of authoritarian model where intelligence has a completely different purpose.
In our system, speaking truth to power and actually maintaining objectivity and independence is crucial, lest it become a tool of the state. In the Russian system, that is what intelligence serves. There's no point in bashing the Russians because the FSB and the SDR are tools of the state. That's why they were created. There is no pretense of speaking truth to power and being objective and independent in the Russian system, so we shouldn't sit back and pretend as if we're morally created from the same cloth.
We're totally different, but we don't have to judge them for that. It's up to the Russian people to decide. We should call out the human rights issues in Russia every time they occur. Anytime Putin assassinates someone or there's a demonstration as a matter of standing up for human rights, we should say something, but we shouldn't get into bashing the Russian system or Putin because it serves no purpose. That's up to the Russian people to decide if that's the system or the model they want, but if you're talking about the KGB, the FSB, the SDR, the GRU, it’s different.
I remember what a Russian general told me once. I was already on my second tour in Russia at the time, so I was already declared Chief of Station and he really wanted to impress on me how different we are, our cultures. He said, ‘Look Rolf, you have understand that your job is to produce information for the president. Objective information, even if he doesn't want to hear it, that you think is in your national interest. Our job is to implement policy through intelligence. We're not there to tell Putin what to think or what the policy ought to be. We don't do that.’ And we were getting into this discussion of why over the years, even in the terrorism domain, much less in traditional intelligence sharing, why we always passed information past one another. We'd give them a pile of information, they'd give us a stack of paper, and we never got what we wanted from them, because it served two different purposes. And that's very much the problem today in policy. The Russians are doing exactly what they should be doing to pursue their policies, and we shouldn't be bashing them for that. We ought to be figuring out a way to either deter them from doing certain things or find areas of agreement where if we continue to work against one other, we’re going to hurt our own interests. That's a much more sober approach.
Read more in The Cipher Brief and find out more about Rolf Mowatt-Larssen here.
Be sure to apply for your seat at www.tcbconference.com in March 2020 for an opportunity to engage directly with the experts on these issues. Seats are limited.
