By now nearly every major U.S. news outlet and numerous blogs have commented on the Pentagon's release of captured Iraqi documents revealing that Russian intelligence officers were supplying Saddam information on American battle plans before the U.S.-led invasion. Reports of Russian involvement in pre-war Iraq have circulated since 2002, starting with allegations from Israeli and Pentagon sources that Russians helped Saddam hide his weapons of mass destruction in Syria.
RIA Novosti is reporting the Russian Foreign Ministry's vehement denials. The Foreign Ministry suggests that the Americans are just trying to distract their people from the growing Sunni-Shi'a violence in Iraq. It doesn't help the Foreign Ministry's case that the documents appear authentic, consistent with other Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) memoranda. It also doesn't help that one Russian retired general took credit in 2003 for teaching the Iraqis how to resist the American invaders the way Red Army fought the Germans during World War II. Retired generals of course, are free to say and do nearly anything they want, and several in the U.S. have harshly criticized the decision to invade Iraq. But perhaps the Foreign Ministry would have more credibility if it acknowledged that several former Russian intelligence officers and ranking military officers were in Iraq just days before the war began.
It is possible, as several commentators have pointed out, that the leak from U.S. Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar was part of a deliberate strategy of misinformation. In particular, General Tommy Franks in his book American Soldier described disinformation as part of his strategy for confusing the Iraqis about U.S. intentions and the timing of the invasion. It remains unclear who was playing who, which is why this Washington Post editorial blasting Bush for not punishing Putin in the wake of these revealations is premature (the Post also conveniently leaves the question of how the U.S. should punish Russia unanswered). Bush has not forgotten that Putin provided U.S. forces with access to former Soviet bases in Central Asia after 9/11. Even so, unless Bush is being quiet because Russian intelligence was cooperating wittingly or unwittingly in a clever U.S. deception, there are only two possibilities:
1) That the Kremlin indeed was playing Cold War games, providing intel it believed to be important to Saddam to hurt the Americans.
2) The Kremlin cannot control all the current and former members of its intelligence services, and several of these individuals conspired to sell Iraq intelligence and/or to protect their business dealings with Saddam's regime.
Here at Russia Blog, we lean towards the latter explanation, rather than the former. As much as many analysts in D.C. would prefer a clear adversary, we think the situation of the Russian security services vis a vis the U.S. and its allies is actually worse today than during the Cold War. The Cold War at least had a certain logic, and the actions of the centralized nation-state enemy were somewhat predictable, although both sides used proxies to damage each other's interests. Compared to the old KGB, the actions of privatized KGB and GRU agents acting as free agents are far more difficult to predict, though sometimes you can follow the money trail before it disappears into cash and untraced accounts. The involvement of ex-KGB officers at every level of Russian business and organized crime is well documented, as is their service providing security for the oligarchs and collecting kickbacks for the Tax Ministry.
It is not surprising that these people would be in contact with their old comrades still working in the Russian military and intelligence services and also the Russian Ambassador to Baghdad. The Russian Ambassador was likely a conduit for Saddam's well-documented attempts to bribe his way out of the diplomatic and economic isolation imposed on Iraq after 1991.
Certainly we could be wrong. Intercepted or recorded signals could be released tomorrow proving that the initiative for sending these retired military officers to Baghdad on the eve of the war came from the highest levels. Previous reports have tied the ultranationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky and former members of the United Russia Party to the Oil for Food kickbacks scheme. We don't know for sure, and we doubt even at the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community and the White House the situation is so clear either. As with the issue of Saddam's support for terrorism and when and where his WMDs were disposed of, more declassified documents will hopefully reveal more of the truth.
We have commented on this obstacle to Western media and analysts understanding Russia before, in this post about why Russia sells arms to Iran. Having an ex-KGB officer renew the Cold War and crush domestic dissent while reviving the Evil Empire is a simple story everyone can understand. Describing how many ex-KGB agents are engaged in acquiring and distributing kickbacks, organized crime, and selling intelligence to the highest bidder is a harder story to tell in the West. But it is closer to reality.
UPDATE: Welcome, Pajamas Media readers!
Comments
You write: "Having an ex-KGB officer renew the Cold War and crush domestic dissent while reviving the Evil Empire is a simple story everyone can understand. Describing how many of Putin's former KGB comrades are engaged in acquiring and distributing kickbacks, organized crime, and selling intelligence to the highest bidder is a harder story to tell in the West. But it is closer to reality."
I'd be curious how you think the Russian public would react if Americans passed Russian secrets to Chechen guerrilla fighters and they cost Russian soliders' lives. Would Russians feel better about America because of such an explanation?
What arguments can Russians advance that Americans should not retaliate by passing secrets to the Chechens now?
Isn't Russian action in Iraq combined with Russian policy towards Iran clearly provocation, and utterly self-destructive? A much stronger USSR already lost one cold war with the USA, isn't it completely insane for a weakened Russia to provoke a second? If the Russian people remain silent in the face of this outrage, is there any justification for feeling sorry for them when the consequences come?
Posted by: Kim Zigfeld | April 1, 2006 6:32 PM
Dear Kim,
In this post we are not defending the Russian nation. Please read the post again, and visit the link about arm-sales to Iran. There is NO foreign policy in Russia, and Russian people don’t think anything about secrets being passed to Iraqis, because they don’t even know that the secrets are being passed. Why? Because many Russian people don’t have TV or electricity in their homes. They just do not care. Also, USSR did lose the cold war, but trust me Russia isn’t playing another game. I’m very sorry if the secrets-passing story is true. As a Russian I apologize, but that’s the most substantial response you’ll find from the Russian nation these days. Things over there are way more chaotic and out of control they you can even imagine.
Posted by: Yuri Mamchur | April 3, 2006 10:53 AM
Folks:
This story has been very much downplayed and I applaud Russia Blog for posting it. Is this a 100% certain reality (Russian intell. tipping off Iraq before the American attack)?
Kim:
The Russians haven't supported any terrorist group inside the US. Chechnya is a part of Russia. American and British officials have openly had meetings with Chechens who the Russians view as terrorists.
Russia was the first country to console America after 911. Regretfully, this spirit of goodwill was hijacked after Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed to the dismay of his neocon and neolib friends like Richard Perle and George Soros. Thereafter, came a barrage of one sided anti-Putin/anti-Russian propaganda. The Washington Post being first and foremost in this misinformation campaign. Kudos to the Nixon Center (especially Paul Saunders and Dmitri Simes) and individuals like Ed Lozansky who have noted the Washington Post's business ties to anti-Putin oligarchs like Vladimir Gusinsky.
Many of the current Russian foreign ministry officials were around back in '99 when the US instructed Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary to not grant Russian military over flights that were en route to Kosovo. Furthermore, the neocon/neolib faction of the American foreign policy establishement successfully lobbied to cancel Clinton administration support for a Russian peace keeping role in Kosovo. This after the Clinton administration requested that Russia act as an intermediary to end the NATO aggression against a historically pro-Western and pro-Russian Serbia that was rightfully combatting terrorism. Russia was credited for bringing the Serbs to the negotiating table, only to be dissed thereafter.
Now, Western offcials are hypocritically claiming that Kosovo independence is somewhow justified unlike the independence of several Russocentric regions currently outside of the Russian Federation.
A recent Washington Post article suggests that the US and Russia are on a possible collision course. I hope that the more intelligent forces within both countries get the upper hand in seeing that the differences not get out of hand.
Relative to the involved topic, I raise these other issues because in diplomacy, there's often a tit for tat mindset at play.
For the record, I was against the American attack on Iraq. If Russia did in deed tip off the Iraqis on intell. before the American attack, then it was a not so bright move on their part.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 3, 2006 2:56 PM
May I suggest a third possibility?
Russia has been an ally of Iraq ever since the early days of the Cold War. It tilted against the United States on the WMD issue to not a small degree for that very reason. Just as it favored the Serbs out of a sense of being the historic protector of the Slavs during the Bosnian nonsense, it was simply helping out an old friend.
Posted by: Bob Waters | April 4, 2006 9:07 PM
Charlie's and Yuri's understanding/explanations of events seems to hold the most water, at least according to my understanding of conditions in Russia. Russia just doesn't have the power to control rogue agents and/or companies when it comes to foreign policy. It is my understanding that with the economy in the condition it is in Russia, the almighty dollar/ruble rules in these sort of matters.
That all said, I think it would be unwise for the US to consider Putin a reliable ally/friend. Michael has a point that the US has alienated Russia over the Kosovo and Chechnya matters, although, I think most in the US (whether neocon or not) would agree it was the right thing to do, well at least before 9/11. Since then, a lot of Americans are probably more willing to turn a blind eye to Russia's dealings with muslims.
Bob, I thought that during the cold war, the USSR was a supporter of Iran. That is why the US provided some support to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.
Posted by: Jason Herr | April 5, 2006 2:47 PM
Bob:
In point of fact, Saddam's Iraq denounced the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan around the time it brutally suppressed the pro-Soviet Iraqi Communist party.
Also, remember the Rumsfeld embrace of Saddam in Baghdad.
As per former Yugoslavia, the Vatican and Germany had a similar bias towards Croatia, with world Islam at large feeling likewise towards the Bosnian Muslims and Albanians.
The bottom line is that the Russian and Serb position on that matter had and have a good degree of credibility which have been very much underrepresented in English language mass media.
I'm very optimistic about Russia's future despite the glaring flaws. Every emerging nation (China, india, etc.) has noticeable negatives.
Russia and America shouldn't be adversaries for the simple reason that it's in neither of those two countries interests.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 5, 2006 10:00 PM
"The Russians haven't supported any terrorist group inside the US. Chechnya is a part of Russia. American and British officials have openly had meetings with Chechens who the Russians view as terrorists."
This an amazing statement from Michael Averko, akin to Soviet propaganda. Just because Russia exercises imperial power over Chechnya doesn't make it "part" of Russian any more than Iraq is now "part" of the USA because it is militarily dominated. And I didn't complain about a "meeting" between Putin and Sadaam, I complained about Putin giving Sadaam US MILITARY SECRETS. Nobody has alleged that Bush gave Russian military secrets to Chechnya.
This is the typical, dishonest, ignore-the-point type of response we got during Soviet times from Russians, and its what brought Russia to its knees.
Russia is now selling missiles to Iran which can sink US ships in the Persian gulf, to say nothing of selling Iran atomic technology, and it gave US secrets to Iraq which cost US lives. America is now free to retaliate by doing the same in regard to Russian enemies.
Welcome to Cold War II, the one Russia won't even survive.
Posted by: Kim Zigfeld | April 7, 2006 4:12 AM
Chechnya has been part of Russia for a period longer than some territory currently part of the US.
Therefore, Kim Zigfeld's reply on that point is incoherent.
Has the claim about Russia giving American coordinates to Saddam been fully substantiated?
What "Cold War II?"
Russia is one of the great emerging markets. Something which Fareed Zakaria's neo-liberal slanted PBS show had to acknowledge.
Never mind the non-chalant support American government gives to a state (Latvia) sugar coating its Nazi legacy.
There're plenty of stones to be thrown in either direction.
My views are akin to "Soviet propaganda?" That would be news to the Russian Communist Party and National Bolshevik Party folks.
It's so easy to make flippantly bogus remarks on the net.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 7, 2006 4:52 PM
So, let me get this straight, Mike: If America can grab a piece of the world by force like Iraq, and hold it as long as Russia has now held Chechyna, then that part of the world becomes "part" of America and no country has a right to interfere with it, right?
"Cold War II" is a an effort by Russia and America to destroy each other through proxies and in economic competition rather than "hot war" which would be a direct exchange of gunfire. Russia will use Iranians to sink American ships and Iraqis to kill American soldiers. America will use Chechens to kill Russian soliders and Europe to boycott Russian products, while moving Ukraine into NATO and the EU (it can't sink Russian ships because Russia doesn't have a credible navy). And so forth. And the only reason this will happen is because Russia asked for it. Again.
The last time there was a cold war between Russia and the USA, Russia lost. And then, it was part of the USSR. Now, it is totally alone.
Posted by: Kim Zigfeld | April 8, 2006 5:53 AM
Mike, there is no doubt that high level Russian personnel were in Baghdad days before the war and supplied the Iraqis with some intelligence, the point of the post is that we don't know if they acted with authorization from the Kremlin or were just acting as mercenaries. We also don't know if the intel provided was useful or not, I have seen conflicting accounts about the Russians' knowledge of the 4th ID's transit to Turkey in particular (the Russian report that the U.S. would hold off for thirty days until April 15 2003 coincided with a French diplomatic proposal to give Saddam exactly the same amount of time...)
Knowing that the 4th ID was out of the fight may have permitted Saddam to reorganize his guards on the Syrian border (another captured document translated this week alludes to it), for what purposes we still don't know - but most of the Baathist and insurgent ratlines run thru Syria, to say nothing of speculation about his disposal of banned materials. We simply can't prove that at this time, only that Saddam changed personnel at the crossing points.
At this point it is all very cryptic and considering the U.S. need to cooperate with Russia on Al-Qaeda use of the Pankisi Gorge and other former USSR regions, the Administration is staying mostly quiet about it, save for Dr. Rice's initial response to the reports.
Posted by: Charlie Ganske | April 9, 2006 4:29 PM
I find the idea of a new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia asinine, especially with China growing in clout next to a mostly empty and rich Siberia and the jihadist threat we both face. What would it profit the U.S. to help the Chechen guerillas who call the Iraq mujahadeen "our brothers"? What does Russia stand to gain from Iraq further descending into chaos? Why should we pretend that these holy warriors do not see themselves as part of the same worldwide jihad (hence the Chechen disappointment with their "brothers" in Hamas), even if they have different localized grievances? That's like assuming against all evidence to the contrary that Baathists have never and would never exploit Islamists; Sunni factions can never tag team us with Shi'as (what was the Sadr rebellion of 2004 then? A coincidence?) , etc. I'm glad many of these Iraq documents are finally being translated and seeing the light of day so people can make up their own minds about what is and is not a "collaberative relationship".
I'll grant that the Cold War mentality is still too strong in D.C. and Moscow, and more so on the Russian side, but that's not surprising considering that Russia unquestionably lost the Cold War. Russia went through arguably greater economic upheaval in the 1990s and a higher increase in mortality than Germany did after Versailles - not that this was all the fault of the Cold War victors, it was just the delayed outcome of 70 years of Communism. You are right about one thing Kim, and that is that Russia cannot possibly afford a new Cold War, which is why it won't happen. Individual Russians engaging in activities harmful to U.S. interests is another matter, and one that needs to be dealt with by putting pressure on Moscow to clamp down. But there has to be quid pro quo, the U.S. can't simply ignore Russia's legitimate interests in its near abroad. That would be like Russia ignoring the U.S. while conducting its relations with Latin America.
Posted by: Charlie Ganske | April 10, 2006 10:39 AM
Kim:
I was referring to current territory in the US. Read my last post which replied to a point you had earlier made.
You really seem to have it in for the Russians. What gives?
Charlie:
Were these retired military folks or a combination of retired and active? A good deal remains unclear.
I share your view that America and Russia need to cooperate with each other as opposed to a new Cold War.
Actually, I believe the Cold War mentality to be greater among Washington officialdom when compared to their peers in Moscow. Just look at how Bush behaved when he last visited Latvia and Georgia. He completely overlooked the high profile transgressions in those two former Soviet republics while making some pious remarks against Russia.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 10, 2006 5:34 PM
http://russophobe.blogspot.com/
Charlie: If Russians understood that they can't afford a new cold war, the wouldn't have given US military secrets to America's arch enemy. The fact is, Russian policy has never been enlightened or even rational, and Russia's plummeting population and influence are the results. Can you imagine Russia's reaction if the US did the same thing in Chechnya? Would Russians ask whether the information we gave was effective or not? Pride goeth before a fall, Charlie. Russians are more than willing and able to go right down the tubes before recognizing that America must be treated with respect.
Mike: I guess Solzhenitsin "had it in" for Russia too, didn't he. And Russia kicked that evil Russia-hater right out of the country, didn't they? And look what wonderful progress Russia made after that!
Posted by: Kim Zigfeld | April 11, 2006 12:32 PM
Solzhenitsyn has been living in Russia for years.
Like Solzhenitsyn, I'm an anti-Communist.
You're very incoherent.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 11, 2006 10:06 PM
I have tremendous respect for Solzhenitsyn, while not always agreeing with him.
Saying that he has now "sold out to the Kremlin" is off the wall babble from an ignoramus.
Solzhenitsyn hasn't formally allied himself with any political group in Russia.
Here're some Russia Blog articles of mine which have constructive criticism to some aspects of what can be considered as a part of Russian officialdom:
Bad Jokes, A New Think Tank & Some Pointed Comments
http://www.russiablog.org/2005/12/bad_jokes_a_new_think_tank_som.html
An Overview Of Russia Today
http://www.russiablog.org/2005/12/an_overview_of_russia_today.html
My criticisms fall into the construtctive mode as opposed to Kim Zigfeld's misinformed babble.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 15, 2006 1:04 PM
"Men must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such method is LOVE."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Posted by: Anna Semina | September 8, 2007 1:05 AM