It is week six of the heroic Ukrainian effort to counter a brutal Russian invasion.
I’ve reacted with horror watching the Russian atrocities across Ukraine (not unexpected, unless you were blind to Russian actions in Syria, for example). But I’ve also had pride in the Western response, albeit slow at times, which has helped arm and fuel the Ukrainians’ incredible will to resist. However, I’ve also been ashamed of those Republicans who are openly siding with Russia.
Who in God’s name votes against a resolution praising NATO?
Well, 63 GOP House members just did exactly that. How Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., and John McCain must be rolling in their graves.
We live in challenging times. Nevertheless, I believe that goodness will prevail. That despite the many challenges ahead, our Ukrainian brothers and sisters can and will win this fight. So much has been written about the conflict, but not enough from the vantage point of an intelligence officer. Here are my three key takes on the latest developments.
First up, the expulsion of Russian diplomats.
We’ve seen the largest expulsion of hostile intelligence officers (over 400 and counting Russians) from Western-allied capitals. It’s the highest number I have ever seen in my lifetime. This should prove to be a big dent in Russian intelligence operations in Europe. That matters because the continent has unfortunately always been a Russian intelligence playground. The Russians have wreaked havoc over the last several years in Europe — to include election interference in multiple countries and both successful and unsuccessful assassination operations. These mass expulsions are long overdue.
But there’s more to note here. After all, I hope that allied intelligence services are taking a run at many of these soon-to-be departing Russian officials. A friendly chat prior to departure may be in order to try and induce defections and the recruitment of new spies inside the Kremlin security apparatus. For a Russian intelligence officer, expulsion now means returning home to a pariah state. It means being isolated with an economy that is tanking. It means being part of a government that is accused of war crimes. Put another way, it is not a pleasant proposition. Russians are now more vulnerable than ever to recruitment pitches from the West.
But that leads to another point: The Russian intelligence services surely expect that the allies will try and recruit their officers. That understanding will likely reverberate across the Kremlin, causing mass hysteria and dissension in the ranks of the Russian overseas presence. Russian counterintelligence will work in overdrive to try and stop this. Everyone will be under suspicion. I expect that the intelligence war is in full swing now. For an allied case officer in Europe, it is prime hunting season for Russians. Keep up the pressure.
Next up, there’s the fact that Ukraine can win. Let’s say that again. Ukraine can win.
What does this mean? Well, it’s now clear that Ukraine can eject Russian forces from all the lands they are occupying. But we have not yet reached the sweet spot — that is to say, the spot where we have maximum economic and military pressure without precipitating Russia’s direct confrontation with NATO. For example, we must provide the Ukrainians multiple launch rocket systems and anti-ship missiles in order to allow them to confront Russia properly in the east and protect Odesa in the south. This doesn’t mean deploying NATO troops to Ukraine. But we can do more. We have the boot on Vladimir Putin’s neck. Do not relax. Do not be trapped by fear of Putin’s nukes.
The Biden administration has performed quite admirably in helping the Ukrainians rout the Russians thus far. Yet I fear that hesitation is gripping some elements inside our foreign policy apparatuses to take the requisite next steps to win. Never forget the words of former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, when commenting on a 2018 engagement in which U.S. warplanes killed over 300 Russian mercenaries under the GRU intelligence service’s control. As Mattis put it, “My direction to the chairman was for the force, then, to be annihilated. And it was.” There was not a peep from the Russians after such a decisive loss. They are not 10 feet tall.
This leads to my final concern: the immorality of the “do just enough” foreign policy crowd.
I saw this happen in Syria, where U.S. officials admitted that they wanted to provide the Syrian opposition with just enough military support to go to the negotiating table with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Just not enough to win. I found that to be a disgusting course of action. Yet I fear this thinking may be gaining traction in some policy circles and in the capitals of “old” Europe. As a former operator (not a think tank or policy official), I had the privilege to work with actual foreigners (such as the Ukrainians). It involves personal and up-close work, helping other people fight for their country. Can you imagine the shame when you know your government is purposefully limiting the provision of arms, only to gain some undefined leverage? If I am a member of the allied intelligence or special operations forces, I must be able to look my Ukrainian counterpart in the eye and say, “We are helping you win.” Not “we are helping you negotiate.”
Let’s get on it.
