Connect with us

Intelligence

Peace or War in Cyberspace?

Published

on

Information and communication technology (ICT) plays an unprecedented role in today’s world, but cyberspace is clearly lacking in security mechanisms that can guarantee stable and sustained world development. Insufficient information security is a barrier to investment in high-tech sectors. Digital technology with its artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, big data, the internet of things (IoT), electronic medicine, and electronic finance is a hostage to the absence of internationally accepted rules of behavior in cyberspace.

All countries without exception are increasingly vulnerable to cyber threats. The international community needs to join forces to build a reliable information security system, but instead individual states pursue policies that make cyberspace even less secure.

The United States is undoubtedly a global ICT leader. However, over the past few years it has increasingly demonstrated an open desire to use ICT for military purposes. It has been developing military ICTs and intensively militarizing cyberspace, thereby unleashing a cyber arms race. There is ample evidence of this.

It was the United States that developed the Stuxnet computer worm, and the American use of it against Iran in 2011 was, as it were, a cyber Hiroshima and an alarm signal to the entire international community because that cyberattack might have had irreversible consequences for Iran, and for its region as a whole for that matter. That attack was effectively the first instance in history of a state using a cyber weapon against another state. Thereby, the United States threw Iran’s civilian nuclear program several years back.

In 2009, the Pentagon set up a body to direct cyberspace operations, the United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), and put it in full-scale service the next year. Cyber Command is authorized to conduct both defensive and offensive operations. Its decisions are to be based on reports from the National Security Agency (NSA).

In August 2017, US President ordered Cyber Command to be elevated to the status of an independent unified combatant command. The order, which was implemented in May 2018, put Cyber Command on a par with the nine other unified combatant commands. Cyber Command is currently hiring hundreds of cyber operators to help carry out defensive and offensive cyber operations. The command is planned to eventually comprise nearly 6,200 personnel organized into 133 teams. According to media reports, these teams are due to achieve full operational capability by the end of  2018.

Lieutenant General Paul Nakasone, head of NSA and Cyber Command, has called for a more aggressive approach to opponents in cyberspace. For this reason, in March 2018 a road map was drawn up for Cyber Command that was entitled Achieve and Maintain Cyberspace Superiority. The new strategy requires that the U.S. military carry out practically daily raids on foreign networks and disable suspicious servers before they launch malicious software. The Pentagon is, besides, developing an advanced cyber weapon system to be called United Platform. Hardly any details about it have been disclosed but the facility is known to be planned as the basis for the defense of U.S. government agencies against hacker attacks and for offensive online operations.

The new cyber strategy is expected to force “strategic costs on our adversaries, compelling them to shift resources to defense and reduce [online] attacks.” But, in order to avoid any of its moves being qualified as an act of military aggression against another country, Cyber Command would not cross the line into actual warfare. Cyber Command’s initiatives are reflected in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the year’s chief military doctrinal document of the United States.

The New York Times has cited current and former U.S. officials as warning that U.S. attacks against foreign networks may provoke “retaliatory strikes against American banks, dams, financial markets or communications networks.” Moreover, Cyber Command admits that its strategy poses diplomatic risks because, according to what it calls  “new vision” of Cyber Command, it is by no means terrorists, hackers or common criminals that are the United States’ main adversaries but states – China, Russia, Iran and others.

Another aspect of the United States’ new cyber policy is legislation. At the National Cybersecurity Summit in New York on July 31, 2018, which was hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Vice President Mike Pence called on the U.S. Senate to enact legislation to create a specialized DHS body11. In order to fund the new body that should act as a centralized hub and encompass resources of the US national government, Mike Pence asked Congress for a record $15 billion.

The United States is going out of its way to monopolize cyberspace. It is an increasingly intensive enterprise, and what makes it particularly dangerous are Trump’s initiatives to do away with the traditional system of White House control of U.S. offensive and defensive cyber activities while a system that is going to replace it is still essentially in embryo.

The Wall Street Journal said that, on August 16, 2018, Trump with a stroke of the pen scrapped Presidential Policy Directive 20, which had been issued by former president Barack Obama and laid down rules on the use of cyber weapons against adversaries of the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s move aimed to lift restrictions on the offensive use of cyber weapons against foreign states because of alleged fears that some supposed hackers were plotting to meddle in U.S. congressional elections in November 2018.14

Hence, the United States is replacing the Obama-era cyber strategy of defense and deterrence with a strategy authorizing aggressive offensive action up to pre-emptive cyberattacks against sovereign countries.

Besides, the United States has for several decades been conducting global espionage via the Echelon electronic system that was based on a 1947 agreement between the United States and four allies. Today’s sophisticated ICTs enrich the resources of U.S. intelligence services. One good example is the Program for Robotics, Intelligent Sensing and Mechatronics (PRISM), which has been running since 2007 and is a facility for the mass-scale secret collection of digital data without judicial approval. In 2013, former CIA employee Edward Snowden publicized documentary evidence that PRISM gave American intelligence services access to the central servers of nine key Internet companies – Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, YouTube, AOL, Skype, and Apple. This implies that the intelligence services are building a global database of audio and video files, photographs, emails, and personal data of social network users. Moreover, according to Snowden’s revelations, NSA tapped the telephone conversations of 35 world leaders and some foreign diplomats, also via PRISM. Experts claim that U.S. intelligence services, in collaboration with Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), have been cracking practically all Internet cryptography standards by using supercomputers and the services of savvy hackers.

The United States’ cyber weapons buildups and global cyber espionage threaten world security. The United States may accuse any country of a hacker attack without any substantial evidence and launch an aggression, even armed action, against it with the assistance of its allies. The range of actions prescribed by the 2015 version of the U.S. Defense Department’s cyber strategy includes armed retaliation for cyberattacks. Recently, Western politicians, mainly the U.S. administration, have been showering Russia with accusations of cyber transgressions of all kinds. In tune with the established practice, no sustainable evidence has been provided of alleged Russian subversive cyber activities. Because of the fanning of the Russian hacking myth and fake news, it largely goes unnoticed that Russia itself has been a victim to large-scale cyberattacks – in 2017, for example, its critical state infrastructure came under more than 70 million attacks.

Nearly 20 years ago, Russia became the first country to sound the alarm at the United Nations about threats that were germinating in cyberspace. Moscow put forward a breakthrough initiative for a guarantee of international information security – a draft UN General Assembly resolution entitled Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security. Since 1998, draft resolutions with the same title have been included in General Assembly session agendas every year. In 2017, to ensure the continuity of information security debates in the United Nations, Russia and more than 60 other countries proposed that the General Assembly put the cybersecurity issue on the agenda for its 73rd session. The proposal received unanimous approval.

Russia also initiated the creation of a UN negotiation mechanism on international information security – the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (GGE). The GGE has reached agreement on many key points such as sources of cyber threats, the imperative of taking action against cyber terrorism and cybercrime, and the principle that international law applies to cyberspace. The GGE unanimously approved three detailed reports that recommended rules on the responsible behavior of states in cyberspace. In 2015, the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) put before the United Nations a proposed draft document that aimed to prevent conflicts in cyberspace and was entitled International Code of Conduct for Information Security.

The Russian position amounts to the principle that no military or political conflicts in cyberspace are acceptable and that therefore any policy that doctrine declaring the use of force in cyberspace a fair method must be rejected.

Russia stands for a digital world order that is based on equality and justice and guarantees the possibility of advancing national interests to all countries regardless of their level of technological development. State sovereignty, non-use of force, the non-interference of a country in the internal affairs of another country, the observance of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, and the equal rights of all states in governing the Internet must be key principles.

The international community needs to develop universal rules on responsible behavior in cyberspace, rules that would be approved by all states. This is a fundamental condition for peace in cyberspace. Russia as the initiator of UN debates on international information security urges all countries to start full-scale work on such rules. Moscow plans to submit a draft resolution containing a basic set of rules to the General Assembly’s First Committee during the Assembly’s 73rd session this year. The planned resolution would include all of the GGE’s recommendations of 2010, 2013 and 2015. It would propose 25 rules, including –

– purely peaceful use of ICT;

– international action to prevent conflicts in cyberspace;

– observance of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states, refraining from the threat or use of force, and the non-interference of states in the internal affairs of other states;

– avoidance of groundless accusations of malicious use of ICT and provision of evidence to support any accusation;

– non-use of ICT by states for interfering in the internal affairs of other states;

– non-use of mediators for cyberattacks;

– measures to prevent the spread of malicious ICT instruments and harmful hidden functions.

Russia proposes that these 25 rules should be a basic set of guidelines that might be adjusted and enlarged afterward. This process could be carried out in 2019 by the renewed UN GGE on IIS, which will ensure continuity of IIS discussion within the UN through already tested format.

Cybercrime has been growing on an unprecedented scale, posing a serious international threat. UN Secretary General António Guterres has said that cybercrime yearly inflicts damages of about $1.5 trillion on the world.

Regional legal mechanisms such as the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention), which was signed in 2001, cannot defeat this evil, although the West literally tries to force the convention on the entire world, including Russia, as the only possible format for international anti-cybercrime action.

Russia’s position on the Budapest Convention remains unchanged. Moscow has repeatedly pointed out that it cannot accept Article 32b of the convention, which, allegedly in the interests of criminal investigations, effectively allows a state to access information stored on any computer on the territory of another state without seeking the latter’s permission for this and even without notifying that state.

Russia believes that it is imperative to develop a new, universal instrument for combating cybercrime. This idea is enshrined in the declaration of the BRICS summit of July 2018. Russia plans to initiate a full-scale debate on this matter in the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee by submitting a draft resolution “Countering the use of ICTs for the criminal purposes” to that effect.

A draft universal convention on cooperation in combating cybercrime that was submitted by Russia to the United Nations was accepted by the General Assembly as one of its documents on December 28, 2017 and was meant to act as “food-for-thought”. It becomes clear that a start for the relevant wide political discussion within the UN General Assembly in New York is needed.

Absolutely all states are obviously in the same boat as regards cybercrime. Some of them are safer against it than others but all are vulnerable to it, and the United States with all its numerous cybersecurity services is no exception either. In a world harassed by cyber gangs, international community should jointly deal with real and not fake threats and criminals.

There is an alternative to the cyber arms race – a cyberspace peace plan proposed by Russia and other countries standing for strengthening peace and security in information space. Future reactions in the United Nations to Russia’s information security initiatives will make clear who really wants peace in cyberspace and who uses manipulation and fake concerns as a screen for plans to unleash a cyberwar.  Maintenance of peace in cyberspace is the responsibility of each sovereign member of the international community.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Prof. Alexander Zinchenko, D. Sc. (Hist.), Professor, Senior Expert, Center for International Information Security and Scientific and Technological Policy of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anastasia Tolstukhina, Cand. Sc. (Political Science), Program director, RIAC

Intelligence

The old and new techniques of Dezinformatsjia

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

Disinformation – i.e. what the Soviet intelligence services called Dezinformatsjia – is at the origin of the phenomenon that we currently define – with oversimplification -fake news, spread to support or not voters’ or consumers’ specific choices, obviously both nationally and internationally. Nowadays the “political market” is globalized exactly like the market of goods and services and hence all the tools available to a country and to its political elite need to be used.

Certainly the intelligence agencies’ room for manoeuvre is currently much wider than it was at the time of the Cold War. Hence many mass manipulation techniques, which in the past were specifically political, are now also commercial, behavioral, cultural, scientific or pseudo-scientific. They are closely interwoven and currently the electoral or political manipulation operations often stem from commercial marketing techniques.

Dezinformatsjia, however, is always a “weak to strong” operation, i.e. a series of strategic and information actions that try to prevent the use of force by those who are tactically superior.

Those who have not enough missiles targeted against the enemy,  or have not the maximum military efficiency, faces the opponent with psychological and propaganda techniques, which cost less and – by their very nature -do not trigger a conventional military countermove by the enemy against whom they are targeted. However they can trigger an equal and opposite disinformation by the target country.

These are all “ironic” operations, in the etymological sense of the word. Irony comes from the Greek word eironèia, i.e. “fiction, dissimulation, or to say the opposite of what you think”.

Just think of the great demonstrations against “Euromissiles” in the early 1980s -not foreseen by the Soviets, which put a strain on the huge intelligence network of the Warsaw Pact in Europe – or of the myth of the opening to dissent in the era of Khrushchev’s “thaw”. Or just think – as maintained by Anatoly Golytsin, the former KGB officer who defected to the USA – of the schisms between the USSR and Mao’s China, or of the transformation of the Komintern into Kominform, in which also Yugoslavia secretly participated, even after the famous schism between Tito and Stalin.

According to Golytsin, a senior KGB officer, all the divisions within the Communist world were a huge and very long sequence of fake news. Westerners never believed him, but the predictive power of his book, New Lies for Old, published in the USA in 1984, is still extraordinary.

He foresaw the “liberalization” of the Soviet system and even its collapse, so as to be later reborn in a new guise. All true, until today.

But what is really Dezinformatsjia, i.e. the technique that is at the origin of fake news and of all current psychopolitical operations?

For the KGB experts, disinformation is linked to the criterion of “active operations” (aktivinyyemeropriatia), i.e. the manipulation and control of mass media; the actual disinformation, both at written and oral levels; the use of Communist parties or covert organizations. In this case, just think of all the organizations “for peace” or for friendship “among peoples”, as well as of radio and TV broadcasts.

“Active measures” even include kompromat, i.e. the “compromising material”, as well as damaging and disparaging information about Western agents or politicians’ involvement in sex, illegal and drugs affairs. This information is collected and used strategically across all domains, with a view to creating negative publicity.

An active kind of measure that we have recently seen at work against President Trump. Nevertheless it has been implemented by his fellow countrymen, who, however, do not seem to be very skillful in the art of desinformatsjia.

It should be recalled, however, that currently a fundamental technique is to manipulate the opponents’ economies or to support guerrilla groups or terrorist organizations.

Manipulation of economies through statistical data or governments’ “covert” operations on stock markets, while support for terrorist groups, even those far from the State ideology, is provided through an intermediary that may be another State or a large company, or through bilateral financial transactions outside markets.

The Red Brigades, for example, initially trained in Czechoslovakia by passing through the Austrian woods at the border, owned by the Feltrinelli family.

When the publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli was found dead near an Enel trellis in Segrate, but long before the Italian police knew who had died on that trellis, the Head of the KGB center in Milan hastily went to report to the Soviet embassy in Rome.

Many friendly and enemy States, however, used right-wing and left-wing terrorism against the Italian Republic.

The goal was clear: to destroy or annihilate a dangerous economic competitor, especially in Africa and in the East.

Dezinformatsjia, however, was institutionally targeted against what the Soviets called “the primary enemy”, namely the United States.

Under Stalin’s power – who was dialectically “superseded” by Khrushchev, always in contrast with true innovators – “active measures” also included assassination.

I do not rule out at all that, in particular cases, this tradition has been recovered even after the death of the so-called “little father”.

As we can see, “active measures” -namely Dezinformatsjia – still has much to do with contemporary world.

If we only talk about fake news, we cannot understand why it is spread, while if it is interpreted in the framework of the old – but still topical – disinformation strategy, everything gets clearer.

In the Soviet regulations of the 1960s, every KGB foreign branch had to devote at least 25% of its forces to “active measures”, while each residence had an officer specifically trained at Dezinformatsjia.

It should be noted that, in 1980, CIA estimated the total cost of “active measures” at 3 billion US dollars, at least.

It was the real struggle for hegemony that the USSR was fighting, considering that the missile, nuclear and conventional balance of the two forces on the field did not permit a real military clash.

However, the result of the final clash would have been very uncertain.

Nowadays every State produces fake news, as well as ad hoc opinion movements, and spreads agents of influence in the media, in universities, businesses and governments.

Hence the globalization of disinformation, not simply fake news, is the phenomenon with which we really have to deal.

During the Cold War, the Soviet apparata spread the fake news of the CIA and FBI involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, while the East German apparata often spread news about Western politicians being members of Nazi hierarchies or about the pro-Nazi sympathies of Pope Pius XI.

It should also be noted that Andropov, who was elected General Secretary of the CPSU in 1982, had been the Head of the KGB First Chief Directorate, precisely the one that coordinated and invented all “active measures”.

At the time, Western newspapers were filled with news about Andropov as a “modernizer”, a reader of the American literature classics and a jazz lover.

Was it Dezinformatsjia? Obviously so, but no one answered that question, thus raising expectations – among the NATO European Member States’ peoples – about a sure “democratization” of the Soviet Union in the future.

Andropov, however, secretly believed that the United States would unleash a nuclear war in the short term against the USSR. Hence this was the beginning of a long series of Dezinformatsjia hard operations right inside the United States.

Nevertheless, following the rules of “active measures”, they were not specifically targeted against the US military and political system, but against other targets apparently unrelated to the primary aim: the US responsibility for the (impossible) creation of the AIDS virus or – as the Soviet Dezinformatsjia always claimed – the “unclear” role played by CIA and FBI in the assassinations of J.F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King or even the death of Elvis Presley.

A specific product for each public.

Hence a fake storytelling is created – not a series of objective data – around a theme that is instead real, so as to reach the goal of a generic defamation of the primary enemy, where there is always a “bad guy” (obviously the US government and its Agencies) and a “good guy”, that is the American people that must be freed from the bad guy holding them prisoner.

According to the theories of the great Russian scholar of myths, tribal rituals, folktales and fairy storytelling, V.I. Propp, whose text “Morphology of the Folktale” was published in Leningrad in 1928, this is exactly one of the primary narrative elements of the folktale.

As in the case of  KGB “active operations”, Propp’s scheme envisages some phases of construction of the myth or of the folktale: 1) the initial balance, i.e. the phase in which everything is devoid of dangers; 2) the breaking of the initial balance and hence the creation of the motive for the subsequent action; 3) the vicissitudes of the hero, who is the one who “restores order” after the natural twists and turns; 4) the restoration of balance, namely the conclusion.

Hence the mythical and fairy mechanism concerns the archetypes of the human psyche, as described by Carl Gustav Jung.

This is the reason why, despite their evident counter factuality, propaganda constructions work well and last well beyond the time for which they were thought and designed.

Active operations are modeled on the natural parameters with which the human mind works. When well done, said operations do not use abstract theories, cultural or sectoral models. They speak to everyone, because they act on the unconscious.

It is no coincidence that currently the archetypal branding – i.e. the marketing system based on the 12 Jungian archetypes – is increasingly widespread.

It was created in 2001, several years after the fall of the USSR and in the phase in which the New World Order was strengthening.

Propp’s four elements work just as an “active measure”, based on four categories: 1) mastery and stability; 2) belonging; 3) change; 4) independence.

It is easy to verify how these four categories of modern marketing (and of the archetypal tale) fully apply  both to disinformation operations, which can often favor one of the four elements compared to the others, and to the actual political marketing.

Hence politics, intelligence services’ propaganda and marketing currently work on the basis of the same deep psychic mechanisms.

In the Soviet tradition, there is also a certain tendency to use Ivan Pavlov’s psychology in the field of intelligence.

Pavlov developed the theory of “conditioned reflexes”, i.e. the psychic mechanism that is produced by a conditioning stimulus.

The experiment of the dog and the bell is, in fact, well-known and needs no elaboration.

It should be noted, however, that the conditioned reflex is triggered precisely when the food announced by the sound of the bell is no longer there, while the dog shows all the typical reactions of the animal in the presence of food.

Here, the “active measures” of disinformation create a conditioned reflex by connecting a country, a leader or a political choice to something universally negative which, however, has nothing to do with the primary object.

This connection becomes instinctive, automatic, obvious and almost unconscious.

Just think of the automatism – once again artfully created – between the Italian intelligence services and the so-called “strategy of tension”.

The goal of perfect Dezinformatsjiais to create a Pavlovian conditioned reflex that works immediately and naturally as a Freudian “complex”.

Nevertheless, with a view to being successful, every fake news or message that is part of an “active measure” must have at least a grain of truth – otherwise it immediately appears as an opinion or ideology, which is soon rejected by the subject.

This means they can be discussed and maybe accepted rationally, but the “active measure” must mimic an immediate, natural and pre-rational reaction. Otherwise it becomes traditional propaganda or part of an open debate, exactly the opposite of what it has to do.

Hence the message must be processed with extreme care to reach the goal of any disinformation operation: to convey in the public “enemy” and / or in its ruling classes a message that – when well done – fits perfectly and unknowingly into the communication mechanisms of the “enemy”.

Western experts call this procedure “weaponization of information” or “fabrication of information”.

Nowadays, however, all information is distorted by the manipulation about the aims it must achieve – just think of the Italian and European debate on immigration from Africa.

Hence also the West uses the weaponization of information- but, probably, it still uses it badly.

Hence we will never witness the end of fake news – which  have always existed – but simply its refinement as real natural “states of mind” or, more often, as immediate reactions, such as those connected to a conditioned reflex artfully created.

In this case, there is no longer difference between reality and imagination.

Fake news as fiction – we could say.

If this is the new battlefield of psywar, it will be good for Italy – even autonomously from the NATO center that deals with “strategic information” – to equip itself with a structure, within the intelligence agencies, developing and carrying out specific disinformation operations.

For example, with reference to the Italian companies operating abroad, to Italy’s general image in the rest of Europe and to its action in Africa or in the rest of the world.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

The third way between war and diplomacy

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

The American presidents all asked the CIA when they arrived at the White House, “What should they do with it?” Often they underestimated the CIA’s analysis. These analyzes described a complex world and they said the process of events was ambiguous.

Evaluation, hypothesis, probability. The White House never praised such literature. The White House often preferred analyzes that were within the framework of its political intentions and intentions. On the other hand, the White House has been increasingly inclined to publicly disclose some of the information collected by the services, due to the persistent desire to attract people from their big decisions.

Instead, the presidents were heavily pushed by the secret power that the CIA possessed. The covert activities, as a “third way” between war and diplomacy, heavily attracted them. All of them have implemented programs in secret to stealthily influence the process. All of them were trying to keep their apps in use. Despite the scandals, the political and diplomatic problems caused by secret activities, none of them questioned the necessity and effectiveness of this instrument in foreign policy.

These covert measures began to expand slightly in the 1950s, at a time when the CIA’s invincible myth was formed. CIA officers, who found such actions as a source of prominence and privilege, did everything to cultivate them. This myth derives from a special cultural sign: Americans as a nation have a very positive image. America considers itself to be a nation that succeeds; it is a winner who challenges ahead of them through his will and technology. The CIA is responsible for this sweeping spirit in Washington.

The slogan of the CIA has long been: “The agency can do it.” Therefore, the opponents of power would not be taken into consideration because the United States needed shadow warriors to protect the country from the Soviet threat, without anyone having much to know about it. This era of trust ended in the process of deconstruction and after disclosure of the “internal” spy activities of the CIA. So the great age of complexity began, which brought fantasies and other conspiracy theories. The CIA takes ugly signs into a dangerous, rogue and out-of-control organization. But Robert Gates states: “The CIA is nothing more than a presidential organization. Every time this organization has faced trouble, it was due to the mission that the president ordered. »

In any case, this is the image of America in a world that has suffered the most pain and suffering from this country. The fact that the United States has an agency like the CIA is necessarily a two-tail razor.

The press and the Congress, in spite of the fundamental belief in the effectiveness of the CIA, served as two powerful guardian dogs to oversee the agency in the service of the president. The dynamics of American democracy, as well as the strong attachment to the constitution and individual freedoms, have made the CIA the “most transparent” intelligence service in the world. The contradiction is that the Americans know more about the secret activities (activities that are definitely the most secret and sensitive activities) to the total CIA performance. Perhaps even more are than the overall performance of other institutions, including the State Department or the Ministry of Health.

Sept. 11 attacks occur and shake the sense of security and invincibility that the United States has plunged into. Since then, US soil is no longer a haven, and the attack has the same effect as Pearl Harbor’s attack. The outcomes of the Iraq war are being added to the most fundamental reorganization in the US intelligence community since about sixty years ago. Information services acquire new authority, many other services are formed, and some of the old networks are weakened or even destroyed, the need to focus more on the powers of information services is felt.

These changes are so far as the United States is creating a CIA over the previous organization. The new goal is to give Americans a unique look at the services. The new organization will focus it’s analyze on the analysis. That’s why we can bet that in the future less than the CIA’s inability to anticipate important events. On the other hand, because of the new reformation of the new head of the American intelligence apparatus, and the CIA has become the agency responsible for all the secret activities, it can be assumed that the CIA will (slightly) head over the next few years will be kept.

The tension between interventionism and the previous doctrine of isolationism has led Americans to redefine the intelligence system as the “last line of defense”. In some respects, this device is the beginning and end of its power; and since the CIA has seen its strength in its mission of being as close as possible to the American enemies, that’s why today it still maintains this precious position.

The CIA actually has an almost inescapable position in the imagination as well as the American political system. The organization gives all its actors the confidence that someone, something, America is intertwined with international affairs, and its influence on the four corners of the world shines.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

What is the Future of Malhama Tactical?

Uran Botobekov

Published

on

The leader of Malhama Tactical Abu Rofiq

Perhaps no single Salafi-Jihadi groups from Central Asia deserved such close attention of Western media like an Islamist private military contractor (PMC) Malhama Tactical (MT), that founded by a jihadist from southern Kyrgyzstan and training militants in Syria.This was possible thanks to the creativity and active self-promotion of the head of this small consulting firm on the Internet, which has managed to attract the attention of many Western journalists and researchers on Islamic radicalism.

The authoritative Foreign Policy called MTthe world’s first jihadi consortium of elite, well-paid fighters from across the former Soviet Union and compared its activities with the infamous Blackwater USA (now named Academi).BBC Monitoring published a series of analytical articles entitled How Malhama Tactical became the ‘Blackwater of the Syrian jihad’ in December 2018.The Independent, CSAF,the American Partisan, The Daily Caller, MEMRI and others also described MTas a successful jihadist training organization that supposedly changed the course of the Syrian war.My colleagues in the study of Salafi Jihadism Pieter Van Ostaeyen and Neil Hauer even interviewed the MT’s commander in November 2018.

The main disadvantage of all these articles is the lack of critical thinking regarding MT.Western analysts relied on videos, interviews and statements of MT’s leaders published on the Internet as advertising.As a result, the MT’s tactical role in the Syrian war is undeservedly overestimated since the boast of its leaders is taken at face value.

About MT more detailed facts cited the Russian Telegram channel Directorate 4, which is associated with the Russian special services.But the main problem of Russian researchers is that it is difficult to determine the edges of analysis and propaganda, which in some places is accompanied by rude insults to the MT’s leader.

The mysterious name of Al-Malhamah Al-Kubra

One should recognize the creative thinking of the Uzbek young man Abu Rofiq, who gave his organization the mysterious name “Malhama Tactical”, which was immediately noticed by the sponsors of the Salafi movement in the Islamic world. According to the Hadith, the al-Malhamah Al-Kubra means the great battle, bloody fights, massacres and the conquest of Constantinople by Muslims from the Romans.

Abu Rofiq likes to create a halo of mystery around his person and his organization. Western media have created his image like the fearless Rambo and a former officer of the elite of the Russian Airborne Forces, who from the inside knows the secrets of the Russian military-training science. On Facebook Abu Rofiq at one time positioned himself as a former sniper of the Russian elite Special Forces GRU whose staff was involved in the poisoning of former Russian intelligence officer Skripal in British Salisbury and in the interference of the 2016 US elections.

The leader of Malhama Tactical Abu Rofiq

But our analysis showed that some of the statements of Abu Rofiq were not true.All his biographical data, family ties and information about the military career are known to the authorities of Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The real name of Abu Rofiq is Sukhrob Baltabaev who was born in the Osh region of Kyrgyzstan on August 10, 1993.By the way, the leader of al Qaeda-linked Katibat al-Tawhid wal Jihad Abu Saloh is also from this region.

After completing school in 2010, he left as a labor migrant to Russia. The Russian authorities have documented that Sukhrob Baltabaev was called up for military service on May 14, 2012, by the Military Commissariat of Russia’s Tatarstan.He began serving in the 45th Guards Separate Special Purpose Intelligence Regiment of the Airborne Forces in the Moscow Region.However, due to the disease of an intervertebral hernia, he was discharged from the Russian army.

Hijrah to Sham not for the purpose of Jihad but for making money

According to Russian sources, after an unsuccessful military career, Sukhrob Baltabaev returned from Moscow to Kazan and worked as a computer programmer at the firm Potok.In those years that ISIS and al Qaeda began actively recruiting Central Asian migrants working in Russia to Syria and Iraq.Having fallen under the influence of the ideologists of Wahhabism, in February 2014, he left for Syria and joined the Jamaat of Chechen militants Shishani.A young wife from Osh and a son Muhammadrofiq remained at home.

At the end of 2015, he created MT with several friends from Central Asia, who began to train on a commercial basis both local and foreign militants in Syria fighting against the regime of Bashar al-Assad.The exact number of the group’s members is unknown but it is thought to consist of 10-15 fighters, all originating from former USSR states.Knowledge of computer technology, creative advertising campaign and ability to find a common language with the leaders of jihadist jamaats helped him in developing this business.MT has become popular due to the wide use of social networks such as YouTube, Facebook, VK, Twitter and Telegram, where he began to publish examples of military training under the pseudonym Abu Rofiq and offer his services for money.

In Central Asia, there is a saying that “Uzbeks know how to make money out of thin air.” There is even a joke about when the American astronaut Neil Armstrong first landed on the moon, he met there Uzbek who trading in the Lunar Bazaar. In the genes of the peoples of Central Asia, where the Great Silk Road lay, historically there is the ability to trade. The natural flair did not fail Abu Rofiq: he found a unique opportunity to make money from the Syrian war.

The company has been working with the al Qaeda-affiliated Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Ajnad al Kavkaz, Jaysh Muhajirin wal-Ansar,and other groups, even Ahrar as-Sham .I am not a military specialist and cannot assess the quality of MT’s tactical trainees on the use of various types of weapons and fighting in urban combat. But MT’s instructors use popular Russian-made 7.62 mm machine gun, US-made modern sniper rifles, helmets with night vision goggles and the expensive military equipment that the armies of Central Asia cannot afford. The other equipment shown in the videos, like the first-aid kit, is also of high quality, used often in US army and its allies.

Malhama produces equipment for other jihadi groups, manufactures accessories for the PKM, vests and grips, widely used in Syria. This means that MT’s business is doing well and its leader has enough connections somewhere to guarantee himself a supply line of such type. The MT leader actively used the online crowdfunding urging sympathizers to donate money to continue Jihad and training the Mujahedeen. At the same time, currencies of all countries were accepted, even bitcoin, QIWI and Yandex. Money electronic transfers.

Russian hunt for the leader Malhama

With the acquisition of fame and the growth in the number of clients, the real hunt started for the MT leader from the Russian special services, the Assad regime and ISIS.The MT leader considers Moscow and Damascus enemies of Islam who destroy peaceful Muslims in Syria. Moscow has special claims to the MT leader. As shown the attempt to kill former KGB agent Skripal in the UK, Putin will pursue his military, who have betrayed the oath. Despite Moscow’s refusal, Sukhrob Baltabaev is a former military of the Russian Army.

In addition, he inflicts sensitive blows to Russia. In a recent interview, the MT’s head stated that the Mujahideen Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who had been trained by Malhama, had made an attack in Tarabiya, Northern Hama, and killed four high-ranking Syrian officers and seven Russians on November 10, 2018.ANNA-News Agency confirmed this information.

Trainers of Malhama Tactical

MT has also been vocal about its opposition to ISIS. On 20 June, Abu Salman posted on his Twitter account an anti-IS message saying: “We must kill them all, ISIS is evil and we have to do something to wipe them out”.

For security reasons, the MT leader appears in the media in masks, or with a scarf tied on his face. According to BBC, the first MT leader Abu Rofiq was killed in February 2017 in a Russian air strike in Idlib. After that Abu Salman Al-Belarusi on Twitter called himself a new MT commander who is Uzbek from Belarus and served as senior sergeant of the 103 Airborne Brigade of the Belarusian Army in Vitebsk. But the Belarusian side did not confirm this information.

But according to the Russian media Abu Rofiq did not die.In order to mislead the Russian special services he spread false information about his death, and now he took the pseudonym Abu Salman Al-Belarusi. That is, Abu Rofiq and Abu Salman Al-Belarusiare one and the same person, that is, Sukhrob Baltabaev from Kyrgyzstan. After comparing the audio and video performances of Abu Rofiq and Abu Salman Al-Belarusi, we concluded that the voice belongs to the same person. The authorities of Russia and Central Asia have identified Sukhrob Baltabaev and continue to closely monitor his relatives.

Ideological views of Malhama Tactical

The ideological views of the MT leader contain the outfit’s mixture of Salafi ideology with the privatization of war because money plays an important role for him in his project. But he cannot be counted among the radical Wahhabis, who are ready to die as Shahid in the name of Allah. His various speeches showed that his level of knowledge of the Quran, Hadith, and Surah, the basics of Tawhid and Fiqh, is not very deep. Perhaps because of this, he avoids the Central Asian Salaf-Jihadi groups Katibat al-Tawhid wal Jihad, Katibat Imam al-Bukhari and Turkestan Islamic Party, who fight in Idlib. In ideological terms, he does not represent a big threat to Central Asia’s countries, because he is not able to conduct propaganda and recruiting campaigns. But he can be described as a jihadist who has close views with al Qaeda and performs his tactical tasks on technical training for jihadists.

Thus, MT was a new phenomenon in the Islamic world which has laid the foundation for the professionalization of Jihad. But without ideological doctrine, it is difficult to predict the continued “successful functioning” of the world’s first jihadi contractor. Therefore, it can be expected that the turbulent development of Jihadism and the fierce competition of terrorist groups will force MT to adopt the radical Salafi ideology and join a certain terrorist group. The history of radical Islamism has shown that the Wahhabi world will not accept those who do not have a deep ideological doctrine of Jihad.In the future, we can expect that the radical principles of Jihadism will force MT to go beyond earning money. MT is already gradually abandoning the concept of money…

Continue Reading

Latest

Reports7 mins ago

Renewable Energy the Most Competitive Source of New Power Generation in GCC

Renewable energy is the most competitive form of power generation in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, according to a new...

East Asia2 hours ago

China’s Soft Power Diplomacy on North Korean Nuclear Crisis

For about the last two decades, North Korea’s nuclear weapon development program has become one of the major issues of...

Newsdesk4 hours ago

World Bank Group Announces $50 billion over Five Years for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

The World Bank Group today launched its Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. Under the plan, the World...

Style6 hours ago

SIHH: Master Ultra Thin Tourbillon Enamel

The new Master Ultra Thin Tourbillon Enamel features a new tourbillon movement and a new-look date counter. They form a...

South Asia8 hours ago

Pakistan Securing Its Maritime Interest and CPEC

The IOR is a major sea route that unites the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia with Europe and America....

Newsdesk10 hours ago

Making Globalization Work: Climate, Inclusiveness and International Governance Top Agenda of the WEF 2019

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2019 will take place on 22-25 January in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The meeting brings together...

Americas12 hours ago

How Has the Purpose(s) of American Higher Education Changed Over Time, and Why?

Initially, universities and colleges have been founded on three central promises such as (a) teaching, (b) public services, and (c)...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy