Russia’s use of undeclared, illegal military-grade Soviet nerve agent to assassinate Sergei Skripal, an ex-GRU officer exchanged in a 2010 spy swap with Russia, Great Britain and the U.S. is beyond brazen. Also the latest act of Moscow’s aggression and preparation for protracted conflict, including a pre-planned attack on the U.S. military in Syria by Kremlin-linked mercenaries.
Great Britain’s initial protests and Prime Minister May’s expelling Russian diplomats met Russian disdain both officially and in their media. Russia contemptuously mocked alleged diminished British status. After evidence from the town of Salisbury revealed the nerve agent used to attack Skripal indeed was from the long-rumored deadly Soviet Novichok family the Russian response remained dismissive. Moscow cavalierly promoted several contradictory responses, accusing Great Britain and the United States themselves in attacking Skripal, denying Russia ever had Novichok, while some officials admitting the Soviet Union and Russia did build Novichock variants (there are many within ‘family Novichok’) but no longer maintain stocks.
Through it all, the unifying Moscow theme: Britain, mired in BREXIT and with Trump refusing to confront Putin, geopolitically didn’t matter.
Then French President Macron and others within the EU rallied support to London in a joint declaration. NATO followed suit. Impressive, the statements brandishing fine words. Beyond verbalisms, the lingering question- would anything tangible happen?
Today, we have a welcome answer. British diplomacy, intelligence sharing and hard work produced a joint, international response by EU, NATO, and allied countries, 140 Russian intelligence officers are expelled simultaneously. Moscow’s flatfooted response indicates clearly Russia did not anticipate successful British diplomacy producing this alliance cohesion and action. To date, this “Novichok Coaltion” is Prime Minister May’s finest accomplishment.
Is the Western response sufficient? Appropriate?
Experienced voices like Richard Haas complain embassy expulsions are throw backs to Cold War thinking, and minimize diplomatic contacts during a tense international period. The Stiftung agrees in part. Diplomatic – as well as cultural – engagement is important even in moments of confrontation to further U.S. objectives. Frankly, military to military interfaces especially so.
Nonetheless, the 140 embassy employees (60 in the US, most from DC and 12 in NY) are deemed intelligence officers (SVR, GRU et al.) The U.S. has long exposed coordination between Russian intelligence officers serving under official cover at embassies and Russians embedded elsewhere. The most popular cultural memory, of course, is the notorious ‘Chapman case’ where Russian illegals coordinated with the Residence and diplomats working under cover. Other examples exist, such as Russian covert murder teams in the Middle East relying on support from officers posing a diplomats in Russian embassies.
Today’s simultaneous blow to Russian intelligence from so many countries sent a strong signal beyond the SVR, GRU and FSB. The West finally sent a unified signal to Moscow writ large that the West does not accept Russian cavalier disregard for the long mutually observed rules. Here the Skripal attack flouted mutually agreed convention that exchanged spies were not to suffer reprisals and family members were out of bounds. A larger principal is also re-affirmed – allied cohesion.
In the U.S., some ex-State Department commentators and academics criticize the U.S. decision to close the Russian Seattle consulate as well. That move, too, has a signal for Russian intelligence services. The Seattle consulate is proximate to Boeing factories, workplaces, a U.S. nuclear sub base and high tech in the area.
All together, US expulsions will free up approximately 100 F.B.I. officers and staff who can now rest up and be redeployed. This is a resource benefit that State Department and academics may not fully appreciate. U.S. counterintelligence is dependent on a limited resource of skilled human capital.
Still, there are better steps than merely expelling ‘diplomats’. Current Russian SVR Chairman Naryshkin recently (and correctly) noted that Great Britain’s expulsion (alone at that time) would not cripple Russian intelligence permanently. First, Russian penetration of London and the U.K. is simply too great. Secondly, new officers will inevitably be sent to London under diplomatic cover.
As Readers know, the Stiftung long advocated Great Britain take clear steps to curtail the corrosive corruption in City of London (their financial district) and throughout the U.k. by the tidal wave of stolen Russian money and parked (illegally) in the U.K. This view is gaining public traction. When Moscow murdered A. Litvenenko Nov. 2006 with polonium, U.K. authorities covered it up for years, unwilling to disrupt the lucrative flow of Russian money into London. Only years later did they discover the courage to release findings now universally accepted as true.
Ideally, May’s initial speech on Novichok and Skripal would have announced steps to clean up City of London and impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs and Putin allies laundering their money in the U.K. Unfortunately, she fell short. (One might note that Tories received over £800,000 recently in Russian campaign contributions). She’s not alone. Trump continues to ignore U.S law and introduce targeted sanctions after the 2016 election interference. The Administration’s mere cut and paste from the Meuller Internet Research Agency indictment a clear cynical gesture.
If Britain wishes this new Novichok Coalition to do more, May must show she is willing to clean house and accept national security, dignity and independence are worth losing Russian ATM deposits and real estate transactional profits. Should Great Britain take this needed step, the EU will take note as well as Moscow. Moreover, British belated clean of their corruption will make it easier for allies to put pressure on Germany to do the same.
Coda
With Trump things are less than they seems. The U.S. expulsion apparently did not reduce the billets along with the departing diplomats. Unlike Obama’s expulsions, which reduced slots at the Russian embassy, Trump’s did not.
Coda II reprise
Trump continues to run interference for Russia and Putin. We now know of his anger that the U.S. expelled 60 Russians – he did not understand his own decision. Coupled with his cancellation of additional sanctions over Russian actions in Syria, the overall posture of accommodation can not be missed.