Alarm 20: U.S. Intelligence Uncover "Russian Threat"
// Moscow is charged with energy arm-twisting and computer espionage
Today is Mar. 1, 2008 3:20 PM (GMT +0300) Moscow
U.S. intelligence chiefs (L-R: FBI Director Robert Mueller, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell, and CIA Director Michael Hayden)
displayed rare unanimity during the hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
U.S. Congress held annual hearings on security issues, based on the report by National
Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. Along with al-Qaeda, Iraq, and Iran, U.S. intelligence officials listed Russia and China among the outer
threats. Moscow and Beijing are charged with using their growing economic influence in the world for advancing their own political goals, and with
cyber-terrorism. Kommersant?s special correspondent Dmitry Sidorov reports from Washington.
U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence held annual hearings on national security issues, attended by top intelligence officials, including
National Intelligence Director, Admiral Michael McConnell; CIA Director, General Michael Hayden; FBI Director Robert Mueller; Defense Intelligence
Agency Director, Major General Michael Maples; and Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research Randall Fort. McConnell was the main
speaker, presenting his 45-page-long report on the situation in 15 countries.
This year?s hearings are notable for the unexpected unanimity displayed by intelligence chiefs when discussing McConnell?s report. Covert
competition among different agencies of U.S. intelligence passed into a proverb long ago. It is no secret that CIA officers are reluctant to share
information with their colleagues from the National Intelligence, and vice versa. Also, the FBI always disliked people ?across the river? (the CIA),
and the latter reciprocated.
This time, however, intelligence chiefs seemed to have undergone drastic changes: they did their best to display readiness for constructive cooperation.
So, CIA head Michael Hayden underlined the recently-appeared progress in special services? cooperation, which did not prevent him from making a
cautious reservation, though. He said that overcoming the in-house code of conduct ?will take certain time?.
Meanwhile, McConnell?s report was as surprising as the climate at the hearings. Although the part devoted to Russia was not as extensive as the parts
about Iraq, Iran, and al-Qaeda, it was the most sensational one. It is for the first time that the leading U.S. intelligence service listed Russia among
chief threats to U.S. national security.
However, it turned out the U.S. special services believe it is not the only threat coming from Russia now. The second threat is cyber-terrorism. ?We
assess that nations, including Russia and China, have the technical capabilities to target and disrupt elements of the US information infrastructure and
for intelligence collection,? said McConnell.
?The assessment is based on the analysis of Russia?s last-year cyber-attack on Estonia at the height of the Bronze Soldier conflict, and some other
actions of Russian special services,? explained a source close to the U.S. intelligence. The source refrained from giving specific examples, though.
Speaking of the political situation inside Russia and its possible scenarios, the U.S. intelligence chief estimated it the following way: ?In March,
Russia is set to reach [?] the first on-schedule change in leadership since communism and the first voluntary transfer of power from one healthy Kremlin leader to another.? By the way, McConnell avoided using the word ?election?
when describing the upcoming authority change in Russia.
Moreover, McConnell said the process is ?clouded, however, by President Putin?s declared readiness to serve as prime minister under his hand-picked
successor, Dmitry Medvedev, a move that raises questions about who will be in charge of Russia after Putin?s presidential term expires in May?.
?The Medvedev-Putin ?cohabitation? raises questions about the country?s future and the implications for Western interests.? ?While many of
the essential features of the current system are likely to endure, including weak institutions, corruption, and growing authoritarianism, we will be
alert for signs of systemic changes such as an indication that presidential powers are being weakened in favor of a stronger prime minister, McConnell
summed up the political situation in Russia.
The report focuses on analyzing the instruments of Russian diplomacy?s pressure for the nearest four years, including energy-trade and military
capabilities. U.S. intelligence services see the threat to U.S. and its western partners? national security in Moscow?s energy policy as well. ?Aggressive
Russian efforts to control, restrict or block the transit of hydrocarbons from the Caspian to the West?and to ensure that East-West energy corridors
remain subject to Russian control?underscore the potential power and influence of Russia?s energy policy,? said McConnell.
The official also noted teething changes in the Russian army which is overcoming ?a long, deep deterioration in its capabilities that started before
the collapse of the Soviet Union?. At the same time, McConnell believes the Russian army has not yet reached ?Soviet era operations?, and ?still
faces significant challenges?, such as ?demographic, health problems, and conscription deferments?. ?Strategic nuclear forces remain viable, but
Russia?s defense industry suffers from overcapacity, loss of skilled and experienced personnel, lack of modern machine tools, rising material and
labor costs, and dwindling component suppliers,? adds McConnell.
While discussing Russia, senators also touched upon Moscow?s relations with Iran. Senator Evan Bayh wondered why Russians supply nuclear fuel for
atomic power plants to Iran.
?Russians are in talks with Iran, using the supplies of fuel for its peaceful nuclear program to show that Moscow is keeping everything under control,?
replied McConnell. ?Russians also explain to Iranians they can expect a lot if they agree to the international community?s offers,? he added. ?I
hope the matter is precisely so,? replied Bayh. In his turn, Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, evaded the question
whether the U.S. regards Moscow?s military-equipment cooperation with Iran and Syria as a threat to its national security as well. ?There is a whole
range of threats,? said Bond evasively. ?Each of them is quite serious, and I wouldn?t select any of them as the top one,? he said.
Meanwhile, a source close to the U.S. intelligence said the threats list includes a suspicion that Moscow-Tehran nuclear cooperation might be beyond the
framework of current international agreements.
Beside Russia, the Senate Committee also heatedly discussed Iraq, al-Qaeda, and special services? methods applied against international terrorism,
questioned not only by human rights defenders, but also by congressmen. Chief news was that U.S. intelligence top officials acknowledged facts of using
the so-called water torture during the questioning of terrorism suspects. The torture makes a suspect feel as if they are drowning. When asked whether
these prohibited methods were used, CIA Director Michael Hayden had to admit the practice indeed took place. However, he stressed that water torture was
applied only to three high-ranking Al-Qaeda members, and not recently, but over five years ago.
What threats does the U.S. pose to Russia?
Vladimir Vasiliev, chairman of Russia?s State Duma Committee on Security:
?Strategically, the U.S. wants to impose bloc militaristic system and to expand NATO. Their aggressive policy creates precedents which can be aimed
against Russia, like Kosovo, for instance. Certainly, it also poses new challenges?such as militarization of the outer space. Meanwhile, the U.S. is
afraid of Russia due to its growing strength.?
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, deputy president of the Academy for Geopolitical Studies:
?The U.S. poses many threats to Russia. They are ahead of us in military technology. Russia?s economic security is undermined by the U.S. economic
crisis. We are pressed out of customary geopolitical spaces; our domestic affairs are overtly interfered in. There is no orange threat yet, but
Americans will hurl all efforts into implementing Ukraine?s or Georgia?s scenarios if there is slightest destabilization in Russia. Meanwhile, we
are too weak to threaten them in any way.?
Vasily Yakemenko, director of Russia?s State Committee on Youth Issues:
?The U.S. mass culture is the chief threat. Everything else is minor in significance.?
Alexander Dugin, leader of international Eurasian Movement:
?The U.S. is threat number one for Russia. Their model of global domination is based on depriving countries of their sovereignty. We need to contain
that policy by giving symmetric response to U.S. challenges. There is no militaristic threat ? we are still on a par in the military sphere. With
the coming of new pro-American liberal-democratic successor, the orange revolution is off the agenda. Yet, the U.S. will make efforts to set Medvedev
against PM Putin, that is they?ll be working for splitting Russian elite and raising separatist sentiments among national minorities.?
Nikolai Petrov, member of the scientific council of the Moscow Carnegie Center:
?There are no new threats from anyone. Simply, presidential campaigns exacerbate discussions on foreign policy issues. They are aimed at domestic
audience, but they produce impact on foreign audience as well. It is not worth attention, though.?
Nikolai Zlobin, director of Russian and Asian programs of the U.S. Information Defense Center:
?First, there is psychological threat: Russia is too fixated on the U.S. events. Second, no one really knows what is going on in Russia, and that
triggers aggression. Third, major part of U.S. establishment regards Russia as a guinea pig for experiments. We cam also list ecologic and technologic
threats. Anyway, all trouble comes from misunderstanding between Russia and the U.S.?