{UAH} WHY THE NASA IS SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE RUSSIAN-TALIBAN BOUNTIES

Why the NSA is skeptical about the Russia-Taliban bounties

by Tom Rogan, Commentary Writer | 

 

June 30, 2020 02:21 PM

 

What's going on with the National Security Agency's skepticism over the apparent Russian bounty plot to pay the Taliban to attack U.S. soldiers?

As I noted on Monday, while the CIA has very compelling intelligence (some very closely guarded) that lends to this plot being real, "the other keystone Russia-collection agency, the NSA, appears to have been unable to corroborate the CIA’s reporting with its own signal collection efforts. This means that the United States currently lacks a direct operational link from the plot to the Kremlin (which would figure because communicating with Moscow would trigger attention from various U.S. intelligence capabilities) having been established."

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal extended this understanding, explaining that the NSA has "strongly dissented" from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency assessments that the bounty plot is credible and real. But the report continued, "The people familiar with the dissent by the NSA either declined or were unable to say why the agency differed from [other agencies]."

As I understand it, there are two reasons why the NSA differs here.

First, because the NSA's Afghanistan focus lines of effort have not detected Russian GRU officers discussing the bounty plot. While the GRU officers behind this plot have been operating separately from the GRU's Kabul station, the NSA would have expected them to leave crumbs of evidence.

Second, the NSA's vast signal intercept apparatus — checking calls, texts, emails, and other communication emanations — has been unable to establish a direct line between the GRU officers in Afghanistan to GRU headquarters in Moscow to the Kremlin officers who handle operational direction for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Considering the sensitivity of a plot to pay for the killing of U.S. soldiers, the NSA assessed that it would have found some line of control evidence here. While Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, is (normally) clever enough to avoid being directly linked to a plot, a plot as significant as this one would be expected to generate data patterns indicative of top-level authorization and monitoring from Moscow. To be clear, Russia's operational intelligence control system means this plot could not go forward without Putin's signoff and regular Kremlin monitoring. Of course, such monitoring can be done by in-person message delivery (beyond the reach of most NSA platforms).

Another point of note here is that the GRU, and the Russian security apparatus per se, like to engage in extensive counterintelligence efforts to divert listening ears. This involves saying false things on encrypted lines that the U.S. might believe the Russians believe are secure, the intent being to mislead the U.S. as to the reality of a particular operation.

This is not to say that the evidence in favor of the bounty plot is weak. The CIA and Pentagon/DIA are confident in their own collection on the issue. It is to say that the NSA worships data, patterns, voices, and sounds above all else, and where it can't find telltale emanations of that effect on critical issues such as this one (something the NSA is exceptionally good at doing), it believes something is amiss.

Where does this leave us?

I suspect that, as time goes on — and now, thanks to the New York Times's original reporting, the Russians have been spurred to chat about this plot — the intelligence community, the NSA included, will come to assess it as high-confidence credible.

EM         -> { Trump for 2020 }

On the 49^th Parallel          

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika machafuko"