Tanzia Amreen Haq
On March 26, 2024, the Schar School’s Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security hosted the event “Assessing Russia,” a timely discussion with two intelligence experts. The panelists discussed the historical and political intricacies that make Russia the country it is today under Vladimir Putin and discussed Putin’s motivations and what it could mean for the Ukraine war and US involvement going forward. The panelists provided insight into Russia’s political leadership, particularly in light of the terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall on March 22, 2024, which left more than 144 people dead.
Beth Sanner, CNN national security contributor and former deputy director of national intelligence, and John Sipher, former Russian operations leader of the CIA, were the panelists for the event. Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the CIA, moderated the session.
Morrell began with the attack on Crocus City Hall, asking Sipher about the warnings the US issues to countries about impending attacks and how they are perceived. Sipher responded that the US works with many sources to gather intelligence and is duty-bound to share information regarding potential attacks even with countries with strenuous diplomatic relationships. He elaborated that, given the propensity of Russian intelligence to share disingenuous information with the US, they often mistrust intelligence provided to them by the US as well. Sipher concluded that Putin had, just days before the attack, reassured his people that the warning was unnecessary interference by the US.
Morrell then asked what the political impact on Putin on the domestic front would be given that he had disregarded the warning. Sanner responded that given Putin’s involvement with his country’s intelligence agencies, the higher competence of the US intelligence gathering compared to his own must have had an impact on Putin’s image among his society’s elite classes. Sipher added that in a country held down with repression and unfair elections, Putin could only offer his people competence and security. However, he has failed on both, and these continued cracks in the façade of power might result in a response.
Morrell then asked if the response would include an attack against ISIS in Afghanistan. Sipher responded that countries like Russia, which have resulted from revolutionary movements, tend to build their security services prioritizing regime security over national security. This results in progressive groups such as LGBTQ groups, or opposers such as Navalny, being targeted rather than protecting the borders from attacks by international terror organizations like ISIS-K. Sipher guessed that there might be a response based on the need to hold on to the perception of control and power but expressed doubts as to whether Russia had the knowledge necessary to execute such a counterattack. Sanner added that if Putin is unable to respond, then he might throw responsibility for the attack on Ukraine to justify further military action.
This led to Morrell asking about the status and predictions for the war in Ukraine and what would determine how conditions there would evolve in the next 6 months. Sanner responded that the outcomes are hard to predict because of the variables at play and the friction of war, but aid and manpower are Ukraine’s most significant requirements at the moment. She added that, despite making certain victories, Ukraine will continue to face pressures unless they find a way to solve their manpower shortage. Sipher added that although Ukraine is facing tough negotiations with Russia, Russia’s global image has also been affected by its poor progress in this war. Sipher stated that dictatorships are often more brittle than they appear, and Russia has lost
over 300,000 people in its war against Ukraine, a far higher number than the number of casualties they have had in conflicts since World War II. On the home front, Putin has also had to tamp down on many opposition forces to hold on to power, indicating that the elites in Russia are aware that Putin’s influence is waning.
Morrell then asked about the threats issued by Putin regarding nuclear weapons and how reliable these threats would be if the panelists were advising President Biden. Sanner responded that the threats are serious but not a risk at the present moment. She drew focus on the fact that the time to worry about Russia’s nuclear arsenal would be when Russia would be close to losing the war. She went on to frame what would constitute a victory for Putin, laying out that for Putin, the victory might not lie in having huge material wins but rather waiting until the US elections occurs, which could significantly impact US support of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Morrell then asked Sipher if Putin would hesitate if it got to the point where Russian territory was at risk. Sipher responded that there is a professional military class in Russia who might stop Putin from acting on his threats because they are aware that nuclear threats are not part of Russian doctrine. The Chinese, who are supporting the Russians also do not want the Russians to engage in nuclear warfare. He added that the Ukraine war would not pose a risk to Moscow unless NATO became involved, which is not likely. However, he commented that Putin has continuously been misread by consecutive US administrations, which has benefitted Putin by allowing him to issue false threats, knowing the US would back down.
Morrell then asked how important the outcome of the Ukraine war is for the US, to which Sipher responded that it is important for Ukraine to emerge victorious to show US willingness to help allies and bring faith back in US leadership. It would help dispel the idea that the US is headed towards a more isolationist state, which has been a prevailing idea since the 2016 elections. Sanner added that the US needs to stop considering Russia as a singular threat and realize the attacks are coming from different fronts through different states with anti-US interests cooperating.
Morrell then pointed to the axis forming around Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran and asked how important is it to Russia that Iran and North Korea are providing them with weapons. He also asked what leverage this buys Iran and North Korea over Russia and what they can get back from Russia.
Sipher responded that Putin visualizes himself as the leader of a new world order consisting of China and the other global south powers. However, Russia has its allies in China, Iran, and North Korea because they are also opposed to the US and a Western world order, and if a new world order does arise, then it would be led by China, given its economic strength. Sanner then added that North Korea’s empowerment through Russia could impact China’s relationship with Russia given that President Xi has a strained relationship with North Korea. Sanner added that although this partnership among Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea is convenient, they are also helping each other become stronger.
Morrell then added that it is a point of concern in the Middle East that there is going to be a provision of nuclear-powered submarine technology from Russia to Iran which will create scope for Iran to enrich their nuclear program further. Morrell then returned to discuss the relationship between China and Russia and asked Sanner how the two countries’ leaders viewed each other—
to this, Sanner said that China and Russia’s friendship is fueled by anti-US and anti-Western world order sentiment and the partnership will continue as long as there is a dominant Western world order. Morrell then pointed to the fact that the four nations are working together on two common interests: the trade of energy and anti-Western sentiment.
Morrell then went back to Sipher’s point of the US misreading Putin in the past and asked Sipher what Putin’s assessment of the US is. Sipher responded that Putin has a better read on the US, which is demonstrated by his threats of political warfare, which consistently garner the same cautious response from the US. Soviets and Russians have invested in understanding Americans for years, and their deep understanding of American politics was demonstrated during the 2016 election, where they knew exactly which companies and areas to hit to create discord in the US electoral process. Putin is a career KGB officer, he knows that the US has a duty to warn, and he has had sources and spies in the US long before they had a security service. This means he has real information about the US, but he has grown to believe in a historical idea of Russia as a country that needs to control its neighbors. Sanner and Sipher then both said that, given his status as a dictator, not many people would be honest with him about the realities around his situation.
Morrell then asked Sanner about her predictions about Russian attempts to influence the upcoming US election. Sanner responded that in 2016, it was a whole government effort by Russia to influence the outcomes. In 2020, Russia shifted its tactics to use influence agents to propagate its messages. In the 2022 midterms, they moved away from American influence agents because it is harder to do when you are sanctioned behind walls, your intel officers are out, no one in the US except for Tucker Carlson wants to give you a voice. Now they are doing a combo of social media and influencers and more demographic research and targeting communities where they think they can gain traction. She brought up AI as a worrisome threat because it can make the messages to these communities sound more authentic by replicating messengers who look authentic. Sanner added that the technology is not yet at that level of sophistication, so the impact remains vague for now. Sipher chimed in and said that there are malign actors in the US who are also adding to the problem by spreading disinformation which has made it easier for Russia to disrupt the electoral process.
He added that it used to be difficult to create this distrust and required effort to push false narratives, but now they can just amplify the disinformation being spread by people in America. Sanner then countered by saying that despite the ease with which disinformation is spread, people are now aware of the situation and are actively studying disinformation tactics, so the effectiveness of this measure has declined.
Morrell then opened the floor to questions from the audience. The first question referred to the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin, where Putin rehashed Russia’s history instead of using the opportunity to reach out to Western audiences and build solidarity with them. Sipher took the question and responded that it was common practice for Putin to talk about Russia’s history instead of engaging with his audience. Sipher added that Russia has not moved past the 19th century.
Another audience member asked how the CIA would psychologically analyze Putin’s character, to which Sipher responded that Putin is a believer of Russia’s supremacy through its history, and the psychological analysis would be to determine to what extent Putin believes in his rhetoric and does not do it as political bluster. Sipher added that given Putin’s rush to enter Ukraine, it
suggests that he believes in Russian supremacy. Analysts studying Putin should also study the history of autocracy, the Russian past of autocracy, and the KGB’s involvement in building autocratic Russia. The KGB is important because it forms a huge part of Putin’s background, the KGB was established to squash opposition, and these values are deeply ingrained into Putin’s thinking.
Another audience member asked whether Putin could be behind the Crocus City attack to divert attention away from Navalny’s death and place blame on Ukraine for the attack to justify his fresh assaults. The audience member suggested that the slow response of Putin to the tragedy could imply that he was behind the attack. Sanner responded that the slow response was more likely due to incompetence. Sipher added that this perception of Putin being behind the attack is expected because of the way he has consistently spread misinformation about himself. However, in this case, there is no major advantage for him to have carried out the attack.
Sipher then plugged his podcast, “Mission Implausible,” in which he discusses conspiracy theories with fellow former CIA operative Jerry O’Shea and Adam Davidson from the New Yorker.
Morrell, Sanner, and Sipher fielded many more questions from both the in-person and virtual audience. If you are interested in hearing the additional questions or watching the full event, check out the recorded event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_cx1ERVtA
