The Failure of European Intelligence

[mindlight]

France, Italy and Germany were included in the 'Five Eyes' intelligence briefings about Ukraine in October.

The split is not about intelligence services funding, epistemology, willingness to strike counter-points, or anti-Americanism (or, anti Anglo-Saxonism). It seems to me to be more about Europe's long term political ambition to normalise relationships with Russia. And possibly the unwillingness of European political appointees to unravel several decades of engagement, particularly when they've been so forgiving of other Russian transgressions (MH17, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, etc etc).

The story out of France - at least that which has made it into the English language press - is that Vidaud was presented with several options about Russian intentions and capabilities concerning Ukraine, and chose to support the one he thought Macron wanted to hear.

The French intelligence community assessment was something along the lines of: "Yes, Russia could invade Ukraine. It has the capabilities and manpower is in place. But doing so would be stupid militarily, and hurt them politically and economically. So, they wont do it".

Thus, he gave the a politically expedient answer - We don't think Russia will invade (as doing so would be dumb) - and avoided any disfavour by being selective about which bits of the assessments he briefed politicians with.

Germany's intelligence failure I think is more one of misreading the human factors involved.

At the start of 2022, the BND was speaking to the press warning that Russia could invade Ukraine. Their assessment though was that any Russian invasion would likely be very costly, and so it probably wouldn't happen.

However, there were also couple of news articles from January that summed up Germany's political thinking as "This is just brinkmanship. This is what Putin does. He's attempting to up the stakes on the negotiations about Eastern Ukraine. He has lots of other options that are less costly than an invasion".

I think German intelligence services made a misjudgement about Putin and the information being given to him. Their assessment was that he knew how badly an invasion could go, so he wouldn't risk it. But, they may not have known that the Russian military was (apparently) telling Putin that an invasion could be done in 15 to 20 days of combat operations, at relatively little cost.

They assumed - wrongly it turned out - that Putin had a similar picture of the gain/cost benefit to their own, and thus would act in a predictable way.

Interesting and well-researched comment, thanks.

So you focus on the Ost-Politik strategy of rapprochement and the European cost-benefit analysis of a potential invasion to explain why they failed to predict it actually happening. They had the same facts as everybody else but read them as a bluff, not a real plan.

According to this assessment, the false confidence of the Russian military and the advice they gave to Putin on the eve of the invasion was the crucial factor that Europe missed. Also possibly they misread just how determined Putin was.

Ost-Politik is now in the bin and Europe is working to reduce dependence on Russia and revamp its militaries. The members of the political elite that were most connected with the Russians are now vilified and Europe is moving in a different direction. Germany's new government considers this an opportunity to accelerate the realization of their Green Revolution.

Putin, now, must be in damage limitation mode, considering what he can retrieve from the situation. He is committed to invasion by his earlier decision but the original Blitzkrieg plan has failed and so he is working for plan B. The Russians have therefore paused and recalibrated their strategy to include the Donbas and annexation of the coast including a landbridge to Crimea and their bases in Moldavia. Odesa is the key city Ukraine needs to defend now.

It seems intelligence communities the world over suffer from the same problem with politicians and political filtering of information. Politicians want to hear stuff that confirms their agendas and regard contrary info as disloyalty.

Biden fluffed the Afghan withdrawal because of the way intelligence was filtered up the chain of command.

Putin fluffed the Ukraine invasion because military commanders were too scared of him to give an honest assessment of their capabilities.

Macron was misled because intelligence officials filtered information to give him the presentation he wanted rather than the one that best fitted the facts.

Scholz was sabotaged by a soulless Political elite without honor who were making money out of the Russian relationship and indeed had been for decades and did not want anything to disrupt those cash flows and also by deluded party colleagues with pro-Russian prejudices in his party and the Greens.

Hopefully, these filters have now been purged and at least for the moment, the politicians are listening to facts, not fiction written to flatter their egos.

 

[Gene2memE]

My personal feeling is that (some) European intelligence organs - definitely not all - failed to successfully predict Putin would greenlight an invasion for the same reason that they were baffled about the UK and/ its decision to vote for Brexit.

What rational reason would people do something so clearly against their own economic and political interests?

The problem seems to be in the assumption people are acting rationally - rather than being motivated by non rational factors. Or at least, factors that appear non rational to the intelligence services.

For intelligence work this is a HUGE issue. Because, most threat/outcome assessments run from the a consideration that entities will act in their own best interests. Otherwise, you end up with situation where you have to rationally justify what are likely irrational behaviours - and that's the purview of psychology (and politics), rather than actual intelligence work [yes, I know psychological profiling has been part of intelligence work for 60 years, but it's mostly retrospective].

Also, the intelligence agencies need to be sure that their assessment of what is an entity's 'own best interests' is the same as how they see it. Otherwise they're going to make the wrong forecast.




As to who is to blame for the state of Europe's defense apparatus, the answer is really everyone involved. Most EU states that are under-spending (say, under the 2% NATO commitment) are either beholden to minor political parties that make good political yardage by being against defense spending, or have generally pacifist political outlooks. Germany is a case in point - it's spent 20 years cutting spending, and Merkel's 2015 to 2017 proposals for ~20 to 25 billion extra per year for the Bundeswehr were picked apart by the SDP and ended up being massively watered down (spending went from 1.1% to 1.4% in the last three years of her office).

The US, by essentially guaranteeing European security and shouldering the defense burden, also didn't help. Bush and Obama both asked quietly and politely for more EU/NATO defense spending and were met with promises and some success (Obama more than Bush). Trump bashed his chest and nearly unravelled the good work done previously - some minor European parties again making yardage by being axiomatically opposed to everything he said.

The European defense establishment probably has some blame too - both for cost overruns and for failing to ensure a priority to 'buy local'. I've got friends who at Airbus and BAE Systems who lament that defense projects are such a tough sell in the EU. While at the same time also moaning that they get outplayed by US contractors when bidding in their own backyards.

Look at the UK and the interesting decisions to select Hellfire (repeatedly) and also JAGMs over Brimstone for their AH64s.

In the late 1990s MDBA, faced with about three year of development delays, decided to save time and 10 to 15 million pounds by opting not to integrate Brimstone with the AH64 from the start (despite the missile originally being envisioned as a Hellfire upgrade).

So, they get passed over three time for missile sales. When the competition for new Apache missiles comes around again in 2020, MDBA quotes an estimate of 70 million pounds to integrate it with the AH64. This was more than twice what the UK ended up paying for ~400 Hellfires.

 

[mindlight]

My personal feeling is that (some) European intelligence organs - definitely not all - failed to successfully predict Putin would greenlight an invasion for the same reason that they were baffled about the UK and/ its decision to vote for Brexit.

What rational reason would people do something so clearly against their own economic and political interests?

The problem seems to be in the assumption people are acting rationally - rather than being motivated by non rational factors. Or at least, factors that appear non rational to the intelligence services.

For intelligence work this is a HUGE issue. Because, most threat/outcome assessments run from the a consideration that entities will act in their own best interests. Otherwise, you end up with situation where you have to rationally justify what are likely irrational behaviours - and that's the purview of psychology (and politics), rather than actual intelligence work [yes, I know psychological profiling has been part of intelligence work for 60 years, but it's mostly retrospective].

Of course, what a secularised intelligence agency deems to be rational might be a reduced form of rationality. Americans got caught out on 911 mainly because the CIA did not understand religion and Islam especially. Putin's motivations have a bite of religion about them also and he is willing to gamble Russia's wealth on this last great chance to rebuild the country he loves. That is not rational to a materialist or to a computer program programmed to look for maximum profit as a definition of self-interest. Also having been in power for 20 years, with no serious rivals and with all the pieces in place he probably figured this was his last chance to make the dream real. When Russians tell Ukrainians they are in Ukraine to clean the land of its dirt and that Ukrainians are the dirt the vision takes an even more sinister shade colored by spite, malice, and anger at what they perceive as years of humiliation and hatred of the West and its notion of freedom.

The Germans and the French were in part so easily fooled because they confused rational thinking with their own material well-being for decades.

Also, the intelligence agencies need to be sure that their assessment of what is an entity's 'own best interests' is the same as how they see it. Otherwise they're going to make the wrong forecast.

The Americans and British seemed to have called this as it was from the start. Maybe the humiliation from the Afghan withdrawal meant that Biden was actually listening to intelligence reports in the build-up to this.

As to who is to blame for the state of Europe's defense apparatus, the answer is really everyone involved. Most EU states that are under-spending (say, under the 2% NATO commitment) are either beholden to minor political parties that make good political yardage by being against defense spending, or have generally pacifist political outlooks. Germany is a case in point - it's spent 20 years cutting spending, and Merkel's 2015 to 2017 proposals for ~20 to 25 billion extra per year for the Bundeswehr were picked apart by the SDP and ended up being massively watered down (spending went from 1.1% to 1.4% in the last three years of her office).

Merkel did her own share of cuts. The situation in Germany is a disgrace but the blindness in the Greens and SPD seems to have dramatically lifted with events. Scholz was clever to take out that loan to guarantee fixup funding for the German military in the short to medium term and I know he did not share his own party's muddled thinking about defense. It was one of the reasons that many of us on the center-right of German politics were OK about voting for him as Chancellor and removing the CDU (which afterall did pretty much nothing to prepare us for this conflict.)

The US, by essentially guaranteeing European security and shouldering the defense burden, also didn't help. Bush and Obama both asked quietly and politely for more EU/NATO defense spending and were met with promises and some success (Obama more than Bush). Trump bashed his chest and nearly unravelled the good work done previously - some minor European parties again making yardage by being axiomatically opposed to everything he said.

Trump was actually right that Europe should be pulling its weight. On reflection, his clumsiness with his European alliance partners might have done some good. Obama's softly softly approach clearly did not work.

The European defense establishment probably has some blame too - both for cost overruns and for failing to ensure a priority to 'buy local'. I've got friends who at Airbus and BAE Systems who lament that defense projects are such a tough sell in the EU. While at the same time also moaning that they get outplayed by US contractors when bidding in their own backyards.

Look at the UK and the interesting decisions to select Hellfire (repeatedly) and also JAGMs over Brimstone for their AH64s.

In the late 1990s MDBA, faced with about three year of development delays, decided to save time and 10 to 15 million pounds by opting not to integrate Brimstone with the AH64 from the start (despite the missile originally being envisioned as a Hellfire upgrade).

So, they get passed over three time for missile sales. When the competition for new Apache missiles comes around again in 2020, MDBA quotes an estimate of 70 million pounds to integrate it with the AH64. This was more than twice what the UK ended up paying for ~400 Hellfires.

There is a lack of consistency over many years and also a failure to develop homegrown products. The MOD has also been weak on controlling costs. But there has been some very good advertising for the NLAW in close quarters combat in Ukraine as small teams of Ukrainians have managed to wreak havoc with armed Russian units. The Russians might like to lob shells from a distance but in a hostile country where every forest and every hill and every building conceals an enemy these portable tank killers have proven the ideal counterweight to Russian numerical and equipment supremacy

 

[Gene2memE]

Trump was actually right that Europe should be pulling its weight. On reflection, his clumsiness with his European alliance partners might have done some good. Obama's softly softly approach clearly did not work.

Firmly disagree here.

Obama's approach - which was dangling a carrot of better EU military & technology independence from the US by reducing US blocks on export limitations - got (nearly) everyone pulling in the right direction. Non US NATO defense budgets had been increasing since 2014. Trump's approach did nothing except actually undermine previous success.

Despite Trump coming home from Europe in 2017 and 2018 and crowing about increases in NATO defense spending, pretty much every increase out to 2019 had been committed to by NATO states prior to his presidency (with the visible exceptions of the UK and Canada).

In the words of a friend (a relatively senior European aerospace executive), Trump's "inelegant toddler stomping" and threats did more harm than good.

 

[Andrewn]

The Americans and British seemed to have called this as it was from the start.

Do you think there is something behind the recent visits of Johnson and vonder-Leyen to Kyiv beside the obvious support to Zelenskiy, which could have been conveyed on the phone?

 

[mindlight]

Do you think there is something behind the recent visits of Johnson and vonder-Leyen to Kyiv beside the obvious support to Zelenskiy, which could have been conveyed on the phone?

Going there is a more definite vote of confidence. Johnson said:

"a show of our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine..."

"We're setting out a new package of financial & military aid which is a testament of our commitment to his country's struggle against Russia’s barbaric campaign,"

Specifically, he spoke of 120 Mastiff armored vehicles, anti-tank and anti-ship missile systems, various precision munitions “capable of lingering in the sky until directed to their target," and more loan guarantees.

The timing is interesting as in most American and British public pronouncements it is clear that this is regarded as the lull before the storm and of course, it follows Bucha and the outrage at the train station.

The choice of support equipment is the kind of thing that could give the Russians pause for thought. If their intention is to secure the Donbas and then take the coastal region then that would involve taking Odesa and most probably the deployment of Black Sea Fleet assets in that effort.

Antiship missile systems (Harpoons) mean that the Russian ships involved in that effort could be sunk.
Anti-tank systems (More NLAWs) and the Switchblades spoken of could take out concentrations of armor or artillery deployed by the Russians to secure a breakthrough in their offensive.
The Star Streak missile system could help neutralize the Russian airpower advantage by forcing their planes up to 5kms altitude.

 

[lismore]

One of the biggest features of the preamble to war was the failure of European intelligence to predict it.

Perhaps it was not a priority at the time. Ukraine is not a member of the European Union. The EU was dealing with the fall-out from the Brexit and the ongoing Covid Pandemic. Putin the opportunist chose a time when he believed Europe would be distracted. What could the EU do about the Russian Invasion of Ukraine anyway?

But as a result we shall I believe see some change, there will be a United States of Europe in time with a European Army. This will be the new superpower.

Kind Regards

 

[Robban]

Perhaps it was not a priority at the time. Ukraine is not a member of the European Union. The EU was dealing with the fall-out from the Brexit and the ongoing Covid Pandemic. Putin the opportunist chose a time when he believed Europe would be distracted. What could the EU do about the Russian Invasion of Ukraine anyway?

But as a result we shall I believe see some change, there will be a United States of Europe in time with a European Army. This will be the new superpower.

Kind Regards

Superpower?

What does it consist of?

All I have observed is mortal, frail and puny man.

Is it not just plain arrogance?

 

[lismore]

Superpower?

What does it consist of?

All I have observed is mortal, frail and puny man.

Is it not just plain arrogance?

The Empires/ superpowers as described by the prophet Daniel. The final world empire will be a revised Roman Empire in Western Europe and Putin's aggression will act as the catalyst for it's formation. God Bless

 

[Robban]

The Empires/ superpowers as described by the prophet Daniel. The final world empire will be a revised Roman Empire in Western Europe and Putin's aggression will act as the catalyst for it's formation. God Bless

Hi there lismore,

Why not Pres Putins, not aggression but resistemce,

Resistence against the one world power.

The West's aggressive propaganda machine is in overdrive.

The world is much bigger today than in Roman times.

 

[trophy33]

The Empires/ superpowers as described by the prophet Daniel. The final world empire will be a revised Roman Empire in Western Europe and Putin's aggression will act as the catalyst for it's formation. God Bless

EU is not just western Europe, though. Are you proposing the majority of countries will leave the EU and the small part that will stay will be the "revised Roman Empire"?

 

[Red Gold]

The invasion of Ukraine seems to be Putin's private decision.
He does not confide in anybody!

So no secret service can fore-tell his plans.

 

[mindlight]

It seems that there is systemic incompetence in the German intelligence service not only in its external forms but also in its internal form. For example, the incompetence surrounding the NSU murders early this century and the subsequent cover-up of that that was recently exposed by Magazine Royale:

FragDenStaat und ZDF Magazin Royale präsentieren: NSU-Akten gratis!

Something needs to change here!

 

[Red Gold]

The invasion of Ukraine seems to be Putin's private decision.
He does not confide in anybody!

So no secret service can fore-tell his plans.

I would like to repeat it.
And this thread here is a strange thread,

 

[Red Gold]

that that was recently exposed by Magazine Royale:

I know this "Magazine Royal".
It is led by a certain Böhmerman.

Not really trustworthy.

 

[Nithavela]

I know this "Magazine Royal".
It is led by a certain Böhmerman.

Not really trustworthy.

Has a mean rap game, though.

 

[mindlight]

I would like to repeat it.
And this thread here is a strange thread,

The Americans and the British knew it was going to happen. His plans were not that secret. He even publicized them the year before.

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

 

[mindlight]

I know this "Magazine Royal".
It is led by a certain Böhmerman.

Not really trustworthy.

The report I linked to is real enough. It is important for Germany that the incompetence of its leadership and intelligence services be held to account and that real reforms are enacted. Without American support, which Germans have grown way too accustomed to mocking, Germany would be in deep doo-doo right now.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Since the WMD fiasco many EU spy agency take US/ UK intelligent assessment with grain of salt. Unless their own intelligent back up US/ UK assessment they go with their own intelligent agency. Especially France and German, who were right about WMD.

True enough, but you'd have thought that several British C-17 strategic airlifters doing shuttle runs from Brize Norton to Kyiv (scrupulously avoiding German airspace, as the paperwork for flying live ammunition over Germany is apparently a nightmare) for a reasonably large chunk of mid-January would be an indication that it's gone from an assessment to something worthy of a screaming panic.

 

[mindlight]

Since the WMD fiasco many EU spy agency take US/ UK intelligent assessment with grain of salt. Unless their own intelligent back up US/ UK assessment they go with their own intelligent agency. Especially France and German, who were right about WMD.

Sadam did have WMDs and used them in the Iran-Iraq war and then on his own people. But the UK and USA used the pretext of this rather than hard evidence of current possession to justify something they wanted to do anyway for different reasons. This is an example of politicians overriding the actual recommendations of the intelligence services also. They had a source in Iraq who also lied to them.

The Ukraine evidence was of an order far above this however as Russian troops were clearly massing on the borders. Despite this evidence, the European intelligence services continued to believe this to be a bluff, and key officials were dismissed following this also. That is a far more serious intelligence failure on a level with Pearl Harbor or 911 or Hitler thinking the allies would invade at Calais.