Speaker 1: This is Mesters in Business with very Renaults on Bluebird Radio.
Speaker 1: This weekend on the podcast, I have an extra special
Speaker 1: guest returning to the show, Jack Divine, thirty two year
Speaker 1: veteran of the CIA. His resume is just too long
Speaker 1: to to go over. We talked about a lot of it. Uh.
Speaker 1: He was instrumental in pushing the Russians out of Afghanistan
Speaker 1: in the nineteen eighties. UH. He helped run the Counternarcotics
Speaker 1: division for the CIA. He He's just had so many
Speaker 1: roles within the intelligence world. Um. Really quite quite an
Speaker 1: astonishing career. His new book is all about Russia's aggression
Speaker 1: against the West, not in the Cold War era but today,
Speaker 1: and it's quite fascinating and very revealing, in particular how
Speaker 1: the Russians have so skillfully used social media to foment
Speaker 1: unrest and anger and essentially turn Americans against each other.
Speaker 1: They're not the only reason why the country is having issues,
Speaker 1: but they are clearly pouring fuel on the fire. It's
Speaker 1: quite fascinating. Really, a person with an endless amount of
Speaker 1: of inside and knowledge from a unique position with no
Speaker 1: further ado. My conversation with the CIA's Jack Divine, this
Speaker 1: is Mesters in Business with very Renaults on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: This week, I have an extra special guest. His name
Speaker 1: is Jack Divine. He is a thirty two year veteran
Speaker 1: of the Central Intelligence Agency, where he has served as
Speaker 1: Acting Director and Associate Director of Operations. He was the
Speaker 1: Chief of the Latin American Division and head of Counternarcotic Center,
Speaker 1: where he was awarded the CIA's Meritorious Officer Award and
Speaker 1: Distinguished Intelligence Medal. He has written a number of books
Speaker 1: on the intelligence fields, his most recent Spymaster's Prism, the
Speaker 1: Fight against Russian Aggression. He was chief of the Afghan
Speaker 1: Task Force and in seven helped drive the Stinger anti
Speaker 1: aircraft program UH, the handheld missile that took out Russian
Speaker 1: helicopters and really changed the course of the war, sending
Speaker 1: the Russians fleeing from Afghanistan. It couldn't be more timely
Speaker 1: given our recent withdrawal. Jack Divine, Welcome back to Bloomberg Break.
Speaker 1: So let's start a little bit with your background, and
Speaker 1: but I guess I really have to lead with Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit about your perspective as to
Speaker 1: what's going on in that nation and where the United
Speaker 1: States went wrong other than the fact that we were
Speaker 1: there for two full decades. Well, I think it all starts.
Speaker 1: It's like many things. How do you get into something
Speaker 1: in the first place off and determines how you get
Speaker 1: how do you get out years later? So I think
Speaker 1: we all were quite shaking, and that's an understatement. By
Speaker 1: the attack against the Twin Towers in New York and
Speaker 1: the Pentagon and uh Alkida attacked, and this country, our
Speaker 1: beloved country. Everybody wanted to get the people responsible immediately
Speaker 1: and go get in Latin. And we knew he was
Speaker 1: in uh he was in Afghanistan, so naturally there was
Speaker 1: a program. The US government immediately decided we're going to
Speaker 1: go get them, and within hours the c I had
Speaker 1: a team on the on the ground already had on
Speaker 1: the ground, but a team coming in to work with
Speaker 1: some of the Mujadine leaders that in the Northern Alliance,
Speaker 1: which I had worked with years earlier, and the Special
Speaker 1: Forces were coming in right behind them. They would have
Speaker 1: been there at the same time, as I understand that
Speaker 1: the paperwork got tied up, but the Special Forces wanted
Speaker 1: to be there and they did a magnificent job. And
Speaker 1: uh actually you know, eleven took place, but you know
Speaker 1: we we the government fell, the Taliban government fell. People
Speaker 1: forgot this in November and in November seven, so you
Speaker 1: know that early covert action program now bombing. The very
Speaker 1: first thing was bombing in October. And the reason I
Speaker 1: mentioned this is, you know, we basically had them brought down.
Speaker 1: Um and are overt military arrived a night the nineteenth
Speaker 1: of October. The government fell, you know, a few days later.
Speaker 1: So did we really need an army? As a question,
Speaker 1: I wrote an op ed piece that's still floating around
Speaker 1: today in July of the C I a solution, which is,
Speaker 1: let's not put it. We're not We're not going to
Speaker 1: win with the army on the ground. We should be
Speaker 1: working to get ben Latin and then where our interests apply,
Speaker 1: we're covertly. So I think the big judgment call was
Speaker 1: that we needed to put our army on the ground.
Speaker 1: Once we made that decision, then your next there's no
Speaker 1: question that we could drive them off the field, and
Speaker 1: we did. The question is how do you get out?
Speaker 1: And you know, the thought that we would be there
Speaker 1: twenty years later was probably not on anybody's mind. So UM,
Speaker 1: fast forward, we get up the hundred sousand troops too
Speaker 1: in the Obama administration. Then you know it started to
Speaker 1: bring it down, and you know there's a big argument,
Speaker 1: big argument today issued that it's not a big argument.
Speaker 1: I think the bast majority if people down the States
Speaker 1: think it is time to leave. But I think what
Speaker 1: we were looking at isn't so much that we were
Speaker 1: leaving the last few days. I think they really criticism.
Speaker 1: Criticism is on how did we manage you know, the
Speaker 1: exit and could have been avoided. I think we're a
Speaker 1: tremendous number of progressional inquiries and so on about this,
Speaker 1: and this will be a lingering issue. So I don't
Speaker 1: think it's about this was the time to get out.
Speaker 1: I mean I've been saying this for a long time.
Speaker 1: It's you know, how do you get out? And being
Speaker 1: careful not to get into things where we put troops
Speaker 1: on the ground, because that is a longer commitment. And
Speaker 1: I'm an advocate for using covert and my whole career
Speaker 1: was devoted to covert action. I am a believer that
Speaker 1: even with troops on the ground, if we would have
Speaker 1: remained focused on Afghanistan and come up with a plan
Speaker 1: to do we have to do and then get out
Speaker 1: of that country. It could have been a much cheaper, shorter,
Speaker 1: more effective war. How accurate is it to say that
Speaker 1: the adventure in Iraq, and I use those words purposefully,
Speaker 1: a war of choice that had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: on eleven that distracted us from the task at hand
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan is part of the factors that led to
Speaker 1: this snaffoo that we see currently going on today. I
Speaker 1: think historians, when they go back, because you need to
Speaker 1: get away from it, everyone's committed. They had a role,
Speaker 1: so they're defending their roles and that's but I think
Speaker 1: when history looks back, we're gonna have a hard time
Speaker 1: explaining exactly why we went into a rock because they
Speaker 1: didn't have weapons of fast destruction right um, and there
Speaker 1: was nothing Even if they had them, there was nothing
Speaker 1: indicating that it was going to be used against the
Speaker 1: United States. And the proof of the Puddy became they
Speaker 1: didn't happen, so they certainly weren't wasn't an eminent threat.
Speaker 1: So I think there were a lot of us at
Speaker 1: that time that scratched our head about why we're going
Speaker 1: to rocket? Rocket is nothing new without Kaida, so you know,
Speaker 1: and this is I'm not a Johnny come late on this.
Speaker 1: I was stumped at the time. Um, and I go
Speaker 1: into that both of my books that you know. I
Speaker 1: think it was one of the great errors in our
Speaker 1: our foreign policy and youth of our tremendous force. I
Speaker 1: mean so, um, you know, we spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time and money and most importantly our precious military personnel.
Speaker 1: So I think it was a great distraction. We missed
Speaker 1: the main point, which was go getting bed I was
Speaker 1: or another rockted where I was very critical of our
Speaker 1: government for not getting him. We took years to find him.
Speaker 1: He was in Pakistan. So invading Afghanistan, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: when the guy was in Pakistan is uh. You know,
Speaker 1: we again restorans and book back and scratched their head. However,
Speaker 1: I was for going after him and going into Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: But as I said covertly, but the Iraq War is
Speaker 1: one thing that I've learned over the years in the CIA,
Speaker 1: were all consuming that there was. Once you decide you're
Speaker 1: going to commit to a war, almost all your other activities,
Speaker 1: and particularly in a NaSTA security arena, are all driven
Speaker 1: by that war. You stopped looking at less about Russia
Speaker 1: and less about China though, it's it becomes all consuming
Speaker 1: all of your personnel. They're hired against that mission. So
Speaker 1: it all there's you know, institutions. It is the wars.
Speaker 1: You know, when they drag on, they have tremendous change,
Speaker 1: has tremendous change about your natural security structure, and there's
Speaker 1: a long tail to it paying for it that it
Speaker 1: was trillions of dollars are gonna be paid for by
Speaker 1: our grandkids. So you know, I think history is gonna
Speaker 1: be really hard on decision to go in and to
Speaker 1: have stayed as long as we did. And you know,
Speaker 1: there was universal support, so there's no wing to you
Speaker 1: can blame it on. We probably gets the Democrats. The
Speaker 1: President and I had to brief exchange. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: there weren't a lot of people shouting about going into
Speaker 1: a rock at the time, and I just found it
Speaker 1: really um umbfound me that we we went in No. Eleven.
Speaker 1: I think you could have invaded anywhere and would have
Speaker 1: gotten support. And that's been some of the criticism of
Speaker 1: the Bush Cheney administration. But let me circle back to
Speaker 1: the point you just made about wars being all consuming
Speaker 1: and leading us to take our eye off of other balls.
Speaker 1: That are in the air. Clearly the focus has been
Speaker 1: on the Middle East for the past twenty years, since
Speaker 1: certainly since nine eleven. But in Spymaster's Prison, the Fight
Speaker 1: against Russian Aggression, you make a very cogent case that
Speaker 1: Russia remains a dangerous adversary, that they weren't distracted by
Speaker 1: what was going on in the Middle East, and that
Speaker 1: they very capably built up assets against the United States,
Speaker 1: which which they have been deploying quite successfully without a
Speaker 1: whole lot of counter from us. To tell us about
Speaker 1: the motivations that led you to write this new book, well,
Speaker 1: a couple of really key questions, and in your point
Speaker 1: that I mean a tackle, and I mean the first
Speaker 1: one is, you know, it's not that I'm you know,
Speaker 1: using Kentucky when they trying to figure out what happened
Speaker 1: in terms of our attention. I mean very clearly in
Speaker 1: our public records, the budget against you know, the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: if you will, and supposed to Russia drive from you
Speaker 1: in the full ward down to ten percent. Now they're
Speaker 1: building it back. And in the first book, Good Hunting,
Speaker 1: I mentioned sort of at the end, not mentioned I
Speaker 1: go into some lens that terrorism is going to be
Speaker 1: with us, and in fact, it's been with us since
Speaker 1: the beginning of time. But it spikes, and it's spiked
Speaker 1: the nine eleven and isis and we had to do
Speaker 1: what we had to do. But the real or bigger, arching,
Speaker 1: over arching, longer issues will be the return of competition
Speaker 1: among nation states, and that's where we are. The dialogue
Speaker 1: is about China, Korea, Russia or on it. So that's
Speaker 1: where the new national security emphasis. Can't take your eye
Speaker 1: off of terrorism. But there was a clear trend, but
Speaker 1: we were all in. I mean, when you put an
Speaker 1: army on the ground and you get up the hundred
Speaker 1: thousand troops and a hundred thousand contractors and billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: so much effort goes into that that there's the government
Speaker 1: isn't fungible in the sense that you know, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to take people off of something to cover it
Speaker 1: and you have to hire new people. So I think
Speaker 1: we became, you know, we felt that the big, the
Speaker 1: big targets, we're not going to be the competitors that
Speaker 1: there are today. China clearly has loomed large. That should
Speaker 1: not have been a surprise. But your point, which is
Speaker 1: a I think a really good one. Is we sort
Speaker 1: of behind neglective. I could use that old phrase about Russia.
Speaker 1: It was somehow it wasn't the Soviet Union, so and
Speaker 1: it wasn't didn't have the economy of China, has the
Speaker 1: economy of Spain or Italy. We should worry less about it.
Speaker 1: But no one stood back and said, well, who's actually
Speaker 1: working against us? In ourn A secured another who's actually
Speaker 1: operating against us and particularly United States? And this is
Speaker 1: what drove me to the book, And that is when
Speaker 1: I saw the elections in UH was again flabbergast that
Speaker 1: not that the Russians were in collecting information and cyber
Speaker 1: I mean, that's been going on and will continue to
Speaker 1: go on and going on for as far as I
Speaker 1: can see. What they did it was really different, a
Speaker 1: size me change Grohich. I couldn't believe they did, which
Speaker 1: is they took the information and used it politically inside
Speaker 1: the United States. And that is not what happened to
Speaker 1: Cold War. As I go into the book, there was
Speaker 1: we've fought each other all around the world, but we
Speaker 1: did not run big sophisticated covert action operations inside Russia
Speaker 1: after Stalin, and they weren't rather a few books on
Speaker 1: the screen. But this as a general principle understanding. They
Speaker 1: were not operating United States in our political system, So
Speaker 1: isn't so much that they were collecting the intelligence that
Speaker 1: they were in there. And that's what drove me up
Speaker 1: the wall. I wanted to screen from the rooftops and
Speaker 1: pay attention. The Russians are deep into our cyber world,
Speaker 1: the new world of combat, and they're very effective. They've
Speaker 1: been doing this and they've had us. They've been penetrating
Speaker 1: us for longer than the Chinese. And we can get
Speaker 1: to that, but they're using it and we need to
Speaker 1: respond to that. So that is the you know, Clarine
Speaker 1: call if you will, from on the spy master's prison.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about the competition between the
Speaker 1: United States and Russia. The US is an open society.
Speaker 1: We have a free press or robust constitution, a First
Speaker 1: Amendment that guarantees freedom of the press. Does this put
Speaker 1: us at a competitive disadvantage against those nations that would
Speaker 1: take advantage of our freedoms and openness. It's a double
Speaker 1: edged sword, and I will take the open, free, democratic
Speaker 1: side of the sword in the sense that during the
Speaker 1: Cold War, you know, we talked about the spying business.
Speaker 1: Having that is our mantra brought many of the best
Speaker 1: agents to us. The best supporters the world to help
Speaker 1: us are allies to help us. Was that flag flying high?
Speaker 1: How would you like there's been a Russian kg VH
Speaker 1: I selling the economy in right? I mean, uh, your advantage.
Speaker 1: It's a tough sell, right, We're talking a lot of
Speaker 1: people in business try and sell that, so it's a
Speaker 1: great advantage. However, there is the other side of the coin,
Speaker 1: which is if you want to we have a system
Speaker 1: that looks broken in some ways. On this next point,
Speaker 1: we need to get a consensus. And of teritarian governments,
Speaker 1: you don't need a consensus, right, you can move more quickly.
Speaker 1: The Chinese can move quickly. The Russians got the Iranians
Speaker 1: because they don't have to have with the Congress and solve.
Speaker 1: But I want to stick with Congress despite my misgivings
Speaker 1: about some some parts of it. But my point is
Speaker 1: when you get into the cyber the cyber type of world,
Speaker 1: our openness provides a level of vulnerabilities that in warfare
Speaker 1: gives them an edgement um and and I should add
Speaker 1: just one point there not to get pustomisty. I think
Speaker 1: we're very powerful in our capabilities in the cyber war.
Speaker 1: The big issue is, because we're a democracy, going to
Speaker 1: your point, Barry, in order to use it against an adversary,
Speaker 1: we need to get a consensus. We need to get
Speaker 1: tigress to improvement. The president can't do that unilaterally because
Speaker 1: it is action, it's covert action, and you'd have to
Speaker 1: get approval. So today's world, being a democracy, you have
Speaker 1: to go through that process and what you're looking at
Speaker 1: and before that and after that, they do not have
Speaker 1: the same compunction season straints, so they have an edge.
Speaker 1: But I still want to stick with our system because
Speaker 1: at some point the system will come together. I know
Speaker 1: that seems Pollyannis in this moment, but we'll come together
Speaker 1: and we will get a consensus on what we need
Speaker 1: to do in the cyber warfare. But we don't have
Speaker 1: it now. And it is where did disadvantage in a
Speaker 1: weakness now? Which goes to your You're I think very
Speaker 1: perceptive question. Tell us about Moscow rules? What are they
Speaker 1: and when did they start changing? So when I looked
Speaker 1: at the election as we were just talking to our election,
Speaker 1: and you know, I was hearing that the KGB was
Speaker 1: actually interfere in our political process I had. I was
Speaker 1: in denial at first that they can't do that, that's
Speaker 1: that's that's a politically stupid But now back and say,
Speaker 1: maybe it wasn't so stupid after all. In their part,
Speaker 1: the second part was that's not how we played the
Speaker 1: Cold War, didn't somebody briefed Putin Putin was actually in
Speaker 1: the Cold War? It was you know, and Dresden, And
Speaker 1: we can talk about that at some point. What were
Speaker 1: the rules that you can't find them? It's like the
Speaker 1: Magna Carter, you know, it's a little hard to get
Speaker 1: your hands around the exact document. But there was an
Speaker 1: understanding that there are certain things that weren't going to happen.
Speaker 1: Where are we on the Cold War. We were not
Speaker 1: going to counterfeit each other's money. Why we would destroy
Speaker 1: the world economy, so we both had the capability to
Speaker 1: do it. That never happened. We wouldn't um uh rough
Speaker 1: off each other's officers because we were fighting all around
Speaker 1: the world, and we would have no chaos in the
Speaker 1: intelligence world. But there are a few exceptions on that,
Speaker 1: but by and large, um that was an understanding the
Speaker 1: others understanding was, you know, we can run operations around
Speaker 1: the world against each other, Afghanistan, Chili, Um, Egypt, wherever
Speaker 1: the crisis, whether Italy after the war, but we were
Speaker 1: not going to meddle in each in each country's programs.
Speaker 1: And I was in charge of it, as you know,
Speaker 1: for a period of time number two and then acting
Speaker 1: for number one. It's number one, And you know, I
Speaker 1: would just tell you the idea of phone came up
Speaker 1: and said, look, let's run a cute operation in Russia's
Speaker 1: Look that's that's not how we played this game. And
Speaker 1: so uh, the Moscow rules, we need to get back
Speaker 1: to the table. And I'll tell it's not just the election.
Speaker 1: Election is just the manifestation of the problem, and that is,
Speaker 1: how are we going to conduct cyber warfare? We can
Speaker 1: have treaties on missiles and boundaries and treaties on management
Speaker 1: of water and so on, but how do you manage
Speaker 1: cyber when it's invisible? So you have to have and
Speaker 1: that comes hard to a democratic system. In other words,
Speaker 1: we'd like things out in the open. We came very
Speaker 1: slowly the intelligence business. Through history. We we build up
Speaker 1: intelligence and back the way. So how are we going
Speaker 1: to deal with cyber and the truth of the matter
Speaker 1: is in my estimation, and I hope it was. That
Speaker 1: was hopeful that I was hearing something and the first
Speaker 1: discussions with Prutinent they were going to defer, so the
Speaker 1: second level officials to sort of work out things. I
Speaker 1: was hoping, and I don't know that to be the case,
Speaker 1: that there'd be some understanding among the intelligence groups at
Speaker 1: a very high level. This is not a committee. This
Speaker 1: is really one or two people agreeing that we should
Speaker 1: we know what you're doing, you know what we're doing.
Speaker 1: Let's understand each other. You either we're going to stay
Speaker 1: out of each other political system, and if they don't,
Speaker 1: then you get to the really hard But this is
Speaker 1: where we needed consensus in this country. How do we
Speaker 1: respond to that aggressive Russian aggression inside of our our
Speaker 1: political and economic system. So what is there obviously was
Speaker 1: a will full calculus made by Vladimir Putin to violate
Speaker 1: these rules. Did he just see us as sort of
Speaker 1: distracted and vulnerable and thought, let me go mess with them? What? What?
Speaker 1: What's behind such a radical change in the relationship between
Speaker 1: two very powerful nations. I think it goes to the
Speaker 1: personality of and it goes to a strategic decision um
Speaker 1: on the personality. As I said, he was. He wanted
Speaker 1: to be a KGV officer at seventeen. They turned him down,
Speaker 1: but he actually got into KGB. You have to be
Speaker 1: you know, it was hard to get into the KGVS,
Speaker 1: just like it's very hard to get into c I A.
Speaker 1: I'm an exception, but which set that aside. But so
Speaker 1: he would he knew what he wanted to be come
Speaker 1: he wanted to defend, you know, the system. He was
Speaker 1: a true believer. And they didn't send him to Paris,
Speaker 1: the wine and dyeing the French, or Washington and hang
Speaker 1: out in Georgetown that they sendim to Dresden. And Dresden
Speaker 1: is you know, the bleak, dark East Germany, the famous
Speaker 1: Marcus Wolf, the real Carla Uh of Lucy's books. I mean,
Speaker 1: he had more spies Marcus Wolfs than I think any
Speaker 1: they should state had at the time. So he was
Speaker 1: in the dark side of the Cold War. And Uh
Speaker 1: when Sony Union fell, he was crushed his whole world.
Speaker 1: And I think he was committed and he remains it,
Speaker 1: and people need to understand he is committed to the
Speaker 1: reconstitution of the Great Russian not so much the Communist Party,
Speaker 1: but Russia being powerful and it's intelligence arms being powerful
Speaker 1: and guess what and adnemy be in the United States.
Speaker 1: And I have how hard time come to terms with it.
Speaker 1: But when I look at the psychology, he grew up
Speaker 1: in a world where the number one enemy of the
Speaker 1: KGB was the the the US, and that's still there.
Speaker 1: He hasn't mind that we're in amplacable and of me
Speaker 1: and the truth of that his adversaries, like myself, I
Speaker 1: think we don't have a good relationship with Russia. There's
Speaker 1: a awful lot of similarhyberties with Russia, and uh, it's
Speaker 1: it's role in Europe and we shouldn't be adversary. So
Speaker 1: it's on that psychological level, and then we can go
Speaker 1: into the whole psychology of Wood and if you like,
Speaker 1: I think he actually believes that we're an adversary in
Speaker 1: a way that I don't believe is the case. The
Speaker 1: second thing is they've developed a strategy, a military strategy,
Speaker 1: and it's uh attributed to one other generals more pronounced right,
Speaker 1: and he was the head of the armed forces, and
Speaker 1: he latest said, well, that's not really his strategy. It's
Speaker 1: called a hybrid strategy means when you're facing adversaries, use military, economic, political,
Speaker 1: what cyber. In other words, they have made cyber part
Speaker 1: of their military strategy and the use of it and
Speaker 1: the use of this information. Other words, what you saw
Speaker 1: in it the States, there is only the visible eventually
Speaker 1: saw a visible part of of of a military strategy,
Speaker 1: and that is you weaken your adversary or if you'd
Speaker 1: like something softer competitor, by getting into their system, into
Speaker 1: their cyber world and causing trouble and making them a
Speaker 1: weaker political force. And I think it was both politically, um,
Speaker 1: I mean not politically psychologically driven, but I think it
Speaker 1: was part of their strategy. If there's an opportunity to weakness,
Speaker 1: they will And I refer to the dabbling in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: You know, they're trying to do what they didn't call
Speaker 1: war challenges everywhere. The one to keep your eye on today,
Speaker 1: not necessarily next year, but today is if you're looking
Speaker 1: at you know, you look at today, what was Russia's
Speaker 1: role with the Taliban? What are they going to be
Speaker 1: doing and what what do they want done? And I
Speaker 1: absolutely time issue their objective in the caleban one was
Speaker 1: to make life visible for the US and to use
Speaker 1: whatever capabilities have had. And I think that story will
Speaker 1: will unfold. So we need to recognize, yes, China is
Speaker 1: that they you know, tremendous military force, but united about
Speaker 1: Russia is fighting about its wife. But it's actually punching
Speaker 1: is China isn't training, you know, really good vigorous training.
Speaker 1: One of the things you mentioned in the book is
Speaker 1: that Putin is essentially the newest tsar in a long
Speaker 1: line of tzars. How did you come to that conclusion.
Speaker 1: Is it a function of his net worth, which I've
Speaker 1: seen all sorts of crazy numbers about, or just his
Speaker 1: consolidation of power and really being the Russian autocrat. I
Speaker 1: think first of all, you know, they counter intelligent people,
Speaker 1: and say, are you going to get excited if I
Speaker 1: said this? But I think it's a very talented guy,
Speaker 1: really smart, cunning, so sense you know, he's this, this
Speaker 1: is a worthy adversary. So what happened? If you do
Speaker 1: he went into the KGB, the that's called Spymaster's prison.
Speaker 1: You know, he's just he was a spy master. He
Speaker 1: ran spy you know, and there's a way of looking
Speaker 1: at the world and one of the one of the
Speaker 1: characteristics you strive where it's not that you're not emotionally
Speaker 1: a cold fish, but when you're thinking, you have to
Speaker 1: look at the realities of the situation and just whether
Speaker 1: you like them or not, you've got to deal with it.
Speaker 1: So I think he's a realist and what he's his
Speaker 1: objective is is to make it's a consolidate power. How
Speaker 1: do you become strong? Powerful? And so maybe he didn't
Speaker 1: set out to be Thezar, but you know, he left
Speaker 1: it and he got involved with the politics, and Petersburg
Speaker 1: became the uh come on, something more elegant than diagnom.
Speaker 1: But he had a lot of interacting with the political process.
Speaker 1: But then he ended up being the head of their version,
Speaker 1: the FBI. People forget he was the head of the
Speaker 1: f SPEED. That's the FBI. What is that? That runs
Speaker 1: by his intelligence, hard edged information, tough guy. You don't
Speaker 1: get there by accident, let me tell you. In Russia,
Speaker 1: so and then Uh he was the political process, put
Speaker 1: him around the Yeltsin circle, and people were forgotten. The oligarchs,
Speaker 1: the old timers thought well, let's bring putin and he's
Speaker 1: a he can be he can be the success of
Speaker 1: the Yelton because we can all manage him, we can
Speaker 1: all manage them. What they missed that they had someone
Speaker 1: of those places coming as they were, and quickly consolidated
Speaker 1: his position. He's a real political animal, the first order,
Speaker 1: and and so little by little he consolidated his position.
Speaker 1: But he was a real operator, and I think we
Speaker 1: have to understand that and not underestimated. But we need
Speaker 1: to understand how he abuses. And it's not you know,
Speaker 1: the warm embrace. I looked in his eyes and me
Speaker 1: you know, I know it was called me the truth.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is this is about naive.
Speaker 1: There's a line in the book that kind of cracked
Speaker 1: me up, not just that he's a spymaster president, but quote,
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as a former KGB agent. Explained
Speaker 1: that that's him. That's him. That's what he said. I
Speaker 1: didn't say that. I would say there's such thing as
Speaker 1: a former CIA guy. But that doesn't mean I'm the Taylor.
Speaker 1: It means that there's a mindset. And what Putin is
Speaker 1: saying to you is, don't be confused. I know how
Speaker 1: to run operations. I mean so and that at that
Speaker 1: I was the head of all operations. So where there
Speaker 1: where there is I think a major fall. And the
Speaker 1: guy that I gave, you know what, I would you
Speaker 1: give the Alexander the grace or something. It might not
Speaker 1: have been a nice guy, but he knew how to organize.
Speaker 1: What I would say about was wrong with his ategy
Speaker 1: is it's the basic principle, which is where his enemies.
Speaker 1: I mean, if he put all the political skills into
Speaker 1: becoming uh, joining the wet and becoming a real partner
Speaker 1: in the West, I think the Russian economy would be
Speaker 1: stronger there, more potential would be reached and the world
Speaker 1: be a better place. But I think he's decided he's
Speaker 1: going to play his hand and it's better for him
Speaker 1: to be the tough guy in charge of a smaller Russia,
Speaker 1: a less dynamic economic Russia. But be in charge, and
Speaker 1: that when you open up to the West, and you
Speaker 1: open up to the democratic process is associated with it.
Speaker 1: He can't count on consolidating and holding on the power.
Speaker 1: So I think he's decided to play the shorthand, which
Speaker 1: would make him UH not Outsider the Great or Peter
Speaker 1: the Great right, so he he is a a tzar um,
Speaker 1: but on the on the on the smaller scale. I
Speaker 1: do think he's a truly a major advers in fact
Speaker 1: we're confronting today. You know, leadership is a really important thing.
Speaker 1: But you know, she is not exactly a walk in
Speaker 1: the park either. I mean, you're not a tough guy
Speaker 1: or the Iranians or the North Koreans. And there was
Speaker 1: the president United States past and present. We are now
Speaker 1: terrorism was a highly decentralized problem. Right now, once the
Speaker 1: know that again, situation reaches a certain point of stability,
Speaker 1: which it will not nothing, not favorably for us, but
Speaker 1: stability we will return to. One of the President's biggest
Speaker 1: challenges will be dealing with hard minded competitors who have nothing,
Speaker 1: have very little time for the democratic process as we
Speaker 1: understand it. And some of the last putent question for now,
Speaker 1: some of the estimates of his net worth, what he
Speaker 1: snuck out of the country and has hidden elsewhere, puts
Speaker 1: him amongst the wealthiest five or so people in the
Speaker 1: world eight billion. Are these just sensational numbers with no
Speaker 1: basis in reality, or has he really moved a lot
Speaker 1: of Russia's wealth elsewhere as sort of his uh emergency
Speaker 1: life raft, or maybe it's his retirement planning well, I
Speaker 1: think one of the big problems with all autocratic leaders is,
Speaker 1: you know, you really don't get to enjoy a lot
Speaker 1: of your retirement money. Um. But I would say this,
Speaker 1: I don't know where he ranks in terms of the
Speaker 1: wealth of the top hundred people in the world, but
Speaker 1: he is substantially wealthy. You know, you don't. I can't
Speaker 1: think of an example in history where you've held the
Speaker 1: type of power hell without a large aggrandizement of your fortune.
Speaker 1: He's certainly not working on what we would call gs
Speaker 1: pension in the United States, right, it's not the way, uh,
Speaker 1: the world worked for the best by knowledge? So then
Speaker 1: was this video wherever they got this video from my god?
Speaker 1: So I would say, uh, he has a masked of fortune.
Speaker 1: That's not surprising and it's not unique in history with
Speaker 1: the people that hold that much power. And whether they
Speaker 1: can track it down with the penny, I'll leave other
Speaker 1: experts to go there, but I would say substantially wealthy
Speaker 1: and amongst one of the wealthiest men today. Quite interesting.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about the state of the
Speaker 1: agency and in particular cyber warfare, which seems to be
Speaker 1: everywhere from China to North Korea to Iran and especially
Speaker 1: UH in Russia. And let's start with what is the
Speaker 1: Internet Research Agency? It sounds like a pretty benign title.
Speaker 1: I couldn't help but smile a little bit. The operational
Speaker 1: director of CIA Inspiring Group used to be called the
Speaker 1: director for plans something you see something like the Internet
Speaker 1: Research Agency, it has the same ring. It's a It
Speaker 1: is really an elite hacking group, and it's the centralization
Speaker 1: of their capabilities. It's a troll farm. I mean, they
Speaker 1: have the ability to go in and create personas and
Speaker 1: they do a really good job of it. Uh. It
Speaker 1: is there platform, one of their principal platforms of executing
Speaker 1: their cyber program. And again the g r U and
Speaker 1: the SPR that's that's Military Intelligence TRU and the old
Speaker 1: KGB is now called the SVR. So this is really
Speaker 1: a platform that's used and it was used during the election.
Speaker 1: All the face fake identities and the operational activity that
Speaker 1: they were involved in emanated from from those intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: and the ira A played a part of them. So
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit about the involvement generally in
Speaker 1: social media, but specifically in the election. What's the purpose
Speaker 1: of disinformation, what advantage accrues to the Russians. If the
Speaker 1: US is busy sniping at each other over Twitter and Facebook, well,
Speaker 1: I think the big advantage is I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's a political advantage that which if you can make
Speaker 1: people angry with each other in the United States. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a whole list of of organizations that they don't
Speaker 1: really care. Whether it's Proud Boys, are ah Q, I
Speaker 1: ON and U and Tea. They don't really care about
Speaker 1: the mission of them. And in some ways, I'm going
Speaker 1: to tell you, I don't think I'm not even sure
Speaker 1: how much they cared about Trump. The bigger objective was
Speaker 1: how you start up and make Americans unhappy among themselves.
Speaker 1: I'm happy about the issues, you know, to make uh,
Speaker 1: any type of special interest group feel that they're being disadvantage.
Speaker 1: So it is really psyche warfare. Used to be called
Speaker 1: psychological warfare, and it's used in every body going back.
Speaker 1: I was just thinking that the Battle of Jerry. You
Speaker 1: mentioned that, right, you were out there and you blow
Speaker 1: the horns and make it sound like there's a thousand,
Speaker 1: thousands of troops when there isn't. I mean, so people
Speaker 1: lying aligned themselves, uh and organized around this information for
Speaker 1: a worldward through the famous body that they was the bridge,
Speaker 1: put a note on it and floated the body to
Speaker 1: the Germans would find it and think we were coming
Speaker 1: in some place other than the Normandy, the Russians and
Speaker 1: Spymaster's prison, which I thought was particularly interesting. And we
Speaker 1: know about it because the guy that was involved in it.
Speaker 1: Eventually the fact was affected to the west. His name
Speaker 1: is Pittman KGB guy. And so in the sixties, like
Speaker 1: sixty four, all of the sudden there's a member of
Speaker 1: a young Young person college at the timement the they
Speaker 1: found the treasure trove of Nazi documents and Devil Lake
Speaker 1: and in and you found all these incriminating documents about
Speaker 1: the German citizens that worked with the Nazis, and you know,
Speaker 1: got into New York Times and it was a big story,
Speaker 1: your story. The only problem with it was it was
Speaker 1: a KGB operation operation next to him, right, And what
Speaker 1: they did is they falsified the documents and as they said,
Speaker 1: himself was part of the team that you know, organized this,
Speaker 1: so it looked like it was a private sector discovery.
Speaker 1: So the purpose was to write Germans hate each other,
Speaker 1: you know. So disinformation has always been a tool psychological
Speaker 1: warfare of the military, but also in the intelligence world,
Speaker 1: and you know, substituting Stalin's head and putting someone I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it goes on and on. The difference today
Speaker 1: is when I was in the agency, you know, you
Speaker 1: don't have limited capabilities as they said. You know, you
Speaker 1: found the body during World War Two and you put
Speaker 1: a note on it. Right today, we live in a
Speaker 1: whole new world social media. It's like it's almost like
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon and its ability to generate tremendous force.
Speaker 1: So the ability to use disinformation, and as we all understood,
Speaker 1: the Russians have been into disinformation and never stopped and
Speaker 1: it's something that they do quite well actually, and in
Speaker 1: the modern days, I'm told that the personas they make
Speaker 1: look very legitimate. They really put time into it. So
Speaker 1: it's a new way of warfare. So there is a warfare,
Speaker 1: there's warfare being taken taking place. And I would submit
Speaker 1: on the in Afghanistan today that Russia is using social
Speaker 1: media to create tensions and problems that are adverse to
Speaker 1: our our inter So this information is part of the
Speaker 1: big game, so to speak. So around the time of
Speaker 1: the election, we heard the name Cozy Bear, Who or
Speaker 1: what is Cozy Bear? Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, U, Lady Bear.
Speaker 1: These are all operational names that you have been given
Speaker 1: to t r U and SBR entities. Cozy Bear was
Speaker 1: actually discovered by Dutch intelligence and it was the Russians
Speaker 1: actually going into our system, and the Dutch alerted this
Speaker 1: to him. They were the first ones to discover Cozy
Speaker 1: Bear being designed to stir up trouble the United States
Speaker 1: during the election. Again almost like the operation I mentored
Speaker 1: Bittman is called Operation Neptune. So Cozy Bear is really
Speaker 1: an operational name for an activity. And you know when
Speaker 1: you when you engaged in sort of meddling inside our country,
Speaker 1: they got the nickname Cozy there, right, So it's it's
Speaker 1: not it's the name of an activity rather than a
Speaker 1: specific group. And then what took place in why was
Speaker 1: it the g r U probing the US election system?
Speaker 1: I think they both are, you know, and uh, I
Speaker 1: can't tell you whether it's a coordinated or not. There's
Speaker 1: probably a bit like our own intelligence world that you
Speaker 1: know a lot of things are coordinated, but some things aren't.
Speaker 1: But did Jerry you and this is true in our
Speaker 1: own system, you know, Big data and the ability to
Speaker 1: mass big data often requires a tremendous computer power. So
Speaker 1: in our world, you know, n s A has tremendous
Speaker 1: capabilities in the cyber world. And now we have a
Speaker 1: military command called Cyber Command. And the reason is because
Speaker 1: it requires a tremendous amount of uh of uh firepower
Speaker 1: if you will, in the cyber world and personnel. So
Speaker 1: uh it's a consequence the military is better equipped to
Speaker 1: handle what I would call large um large cyber activities.
Speaker 1: And that's why we have a cyber command today. The CIA,
Speaker 1: and again this would be you know, my personal judgment,
Speaker 1: and and and the KGV sp R probably do more
Speaker 1: surgical things. In other words, they're not trying to mass
Speaker 1: all the data and grind it down in supercomputers, but
Speaker 1: are looking at surgical things, targeted types of activities. So,
Speaker 1: but both of them are under flying under the same flag,
Speaker 1: which is it is too run operations that that weaken
Speaker 1: the political fabric of the United States. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about some of those operations that are attempts to weaken
Speaker 1: the social fabric. Here. I want there's a run of
Speaker 1: things you've you've referenced. I want to ask you about
Speaker 1: you mentioned Q and on are the Russians stirring up
Speaker 1: trouble with that group? Well, I think there's a number
Speaker 1: of things that have emerged the book that I it's
Speaker 1: it's it's really what are the types of groups that
Speaker 1: they would be looking at Antipa right, uh? Doing on? Uh?
Speaker 1: They started in the vac the nation program putting out
Speaker 1: this information about the vaccination and then that vaccinations are
Speaker 1: vaccinations were not not not good, not not effective? Right,
Speaker 1: so uh and then where were the Chinese doing about
Speaker 1: where did the where did the virus start? And so um,
Speaker 1: you know proud boys, uh, white supremacist right climate. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're taking issues and it's not as though, as I said,
Speaker 1: you don't want to overweight that they're working with the
Speaker 1: conservatives or the left or whatever. They are just taking
Speaker 1: advantages where a ce friction inside of our system and
Speaker 1: try to agitate. So um, I think you know, the FBI,
Speaker 1: I would think would be immensely busy and trying to
Speaker 1: figure this out, as well as the n s A.
Speaker 1: And how deep are they now the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I don't think I think it's a nuisance at this point.
Speaker 1: I think the what we really need to be concerned.
Speaker 1: Is it a real potential if they decided up the
Speaker 1: anti I mean, how far could they push it? And
Speaker 1: second of all, we need to nip it in the butt.
Speaker 1: It's not exactly the but I think it's blooming, if
Speaker 1: you will. But I think we need to have some understanding.
Speaker 1: This cannot be going checked where you know we have
Speaker 1: you picked whatever group. Now there's any group that has
Speaker 1: a voice that you know, and particularly conspiratorial mindset, And
Speaker 1: that is much larger than I anticipated, even though I
Speaker 1: came for the world of conspirators. Right, Maybe it's because
Speaker 1: I know too much that the conspiracies are harder to
Speaker 1: bring about them, one would think. But there is a
Speaker 1: mindset in the United States, and I'm only now thinking
Speaker 1: of where where are the roots of this mindset? And
Speaker 1: it's a conspiratorial one. We become less less sanguine about
Speaker 1: our government and our institutions, and we're more susceptible we
Speaker 1: used to be. And I'm trying to figure what is changing.
Speaker 1: And then I mean, it's kind of right before us. Right,
Speaker 1: it's the cyber world and social media in other words,
Speaker 1: today it is so much easier stir up trouble among
Speaker 1: among people and I think we have to realize that
Speaker 1: it's not a lot of this isn't just internal. Much
Speaker 1: of it is going to be taking advantages by all
Speaker 1: of our competitors how to make this week. And we
Speaker 1: have to be susceptible, I mean, we have to be
Speaker 1: perceptive about this, and we have to be able to
Speaker 1: address it with is doing it. And that's why I
Speaker 1: think we need have really tough discussions. The Russians are
Speaker 1: the ones that are really doing it now. The Chinese
Speaker 1: looked at we know this from public intelligence reports have
Speaker 1: made public by the Intelligence Comminity, but decided not to
Speaker 1: In others they did one Trump is being too tough
Speaker 1: on them or whatever, but they decided that we can
Speaker 1: live with that, but we're not going to do with
Speaker 1: the Russians. But they looked at it, you know. But
Speaker 1: the Russians, they're gonna go, why why step back if
Speaker 1: you're not being forced to step back? And they need
Speaker 1: to remember, right, start with the perius of power players.
Speaker 1: So a power player looks for vulnerabilities, pushes in it,
Speaker 1: and you won't. You don't back up unless its power.
Speaker 1: You're not going to jaw bone the prutinents of this world.
Speaker 1: The shades of this world with sweet words. You know
Speaker 1: that they if you accept that they're power players, they
Speaker 1: recognize power. We have to make sure we don't delude
Speaker 1: their power. Or one of the things about democracy touched
Speaker 1: tho is really interesting and we don't think about it enough.
Speaker 1: Americans really restrainful. I know it doesn't feel like that today,
Speaker 1: but so that you know, we don't really use our force.
Speaker 1: The rest of the world looks at us and being
Speaker 1: much more, much stronger, and have a different view of
Speaker 1: us and our power. We tend not to use use
Speaker 1: our power as much as if our country were an
Speaker 1: authoritarian oriented case and didn't have to go before the public.
Speaker 1: So the you know, we're not using our power by
Speaker 1: choice at this point, the counter cyber cyber warfare, and
Speaker 1: the question is when will we reach that consensus and
Speaker 1: the will of United people that we're not going to tolerate,
Speaker 1: you know, intrusions into our political process. So let me
Speaker 1: reference some of the things you you write about in
Speaker 1: the book that was kind of fascinating. I didn't have
Speaker 1: any idea that the Russians were out buying Facebook accounts
Speaker 1: and Twitter accounts and other local accounts in order to
Speaker 1: use that as part of their agit prop. Uh that
Speaker 1: was that was really kind of shocking. Who are the
Speaker 1: useful idiots that are selling these things to the Russians
Speaker 1: because I have to imagine someone wants to buy your
Speaker 1: Facebook account. No good could ever come out of that.
Speaker 1: They create their own personas. I mean, they actually create
Speaker 1: people that you think they that they actually exist, or
Speaker 1: as they create uh, fake identities and run them on
Speaker 1: Facebook and Twitter. Right, Remember they did that years ago.
Speaker 1: We had a spy in the Famous Spy. There was
Speaker 1: a movie with Tom Hanks a few years ago, um,
Speaker 1: and it was Rudolph Able, right. He came here under
Speaker 1: fourth documents and then they have the show the Americans. Right,
Speaker 1: this is all old Russia's stuff. But if he moved
Speaker 1: to today, it's not one person. You're building identities, You're
Speaker 1: you're you're building social media identities that look real, you know.
Speaker 1: And so they had I have in front of me
Speaker 1: right now. But I think you know, two thousand, they
Speaker 1: had like twenty nine thousand Facebook spots that you get hit,
Speaker 1: you know, they had Twitter accounts. I mean, they were
Speaker 1: out there. I think the when I did the research
Speaker 1: on it, I think we I think from the low
Speaker 1: end Uh concluded that they had like twenty million hits,
Speaker 1: twenty nine million hits. There was It wasn't trivial. That
Speaker 1: wasn't like one guy came in with a false document, right,
Speaker 1: this was we were out there. They were peddling among
Speaker 1: twenty nine million people. But I think if you look
Speaker 1: at them and the numbers and the aggregate, it it
Speaker 1: looks really big. But I think at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, the election was really the American people were
Speaker 1: voting on bigger issues in their mind, and the Russians
Speaker 1: firm working around the edges. But the potential is there.
Speaker 1: And even if they only changed two thousand votes or
Speaker 1: made two thousand people, man, that's two thousand too many. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: let's look at let's look at Brexit, which was you know,
Speaker 1: pretty much a dead split down the middle with a
Speaker 1: slight advantage to the Brexiters. Were the Russians agitating for
Speaker 1: the UK against the EU and and did they have
Speaker 1: an impact there? Yeah, I honestly I don't know the answer.
Speaker 1: But you know, the Brits are in some way, I mean,
Speaker 1: our closest ally, I would say we have the Canadians
Speaker 1: that are are close to us, Australians are the five eyes. Um.
Speaker 1: I think one of the problems for footing and that
Speaker 1: issue would be is it better for Russia UH to
Speaker 1: have the UK in or out of NATO? So would
Speaker 1: the conclusion be they be better out? Um, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure they'd make that call because it might mean closer
Speaker 1: alliance with the US. So I don't know whether they
Speaker 1: don't have any um, primary source research on that, but
Speaker 1: it felt to them like it was advantageous. Then I
Speaker 1: would suspect that they you know, and as you were saying,
Speaker 1: you could work within the margins, but you have to
Speaker 1: make a decision and a lot of times even autocrats
Speaker 1: are stuck with you know, tell me how this plays
Speaker 1: out again, I mean, does it all worked or our favor?
Speaker 1: But to human beings and so they can make a
Speaker 1: snap decision. So I don't think Russia changed and had
Speaker 1: the impact of on on Breakfast. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's like the American election. I think it is what
Speaker 1: it is, and I think it up for a lot
Speaker 1: of other over arching issues beyond what the Russians might
Speaker 1: be able to start up. Right, you mentioned in the
Speaker 1: book after the election, there were these not my president rallies,
Speaker 1: tell us who was behind those and who was agitating
Speaker 1: for those. So again, you have a lot of folks
Speaker 1: that in the world of social media, almost spontaneously, you
Speaker 1: don't know who starts the first the first tweet on it,
Speaker 1: right or whatever. But I think once the Russians saw it,
Speaker 1: I think are are reporting would indicate that they saw
Speaker 1: that as an opportunity, so that that is that is
Speaker 1: one area where they were um developing Facebook points and agitating.
Speaker 1: So but where they be driving force. I won't give
Speaker 1: them that credit yet, right, all right, but they saw
Speaker 1: it and it was in their interest to have a
Speaker 1: segment of the population to feel that the presidented state
Speaker 1: is illegitimate members. Anytime you're an adversary and you can
Speaker 1: play that card that weekends your adversary. So they surely
Speaker 1: were in into it where they braids behind it. Now,
Speaker 1: I think that was going to come. It did come
Speaker 1: with or without. But would they play in it short
Speaker 1: and as I said, you know, around the edges, it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's um you know, I'm not saying to
Speaker 1: make a difference, but they were playing in it. I'm
Speaker 1: concerned that they're playing across the broad spectrum of things,
Speaker 1: and the potential if not checked, then they will create
Speaker 1: not my president right, how much money are they going
Speaker 1: to throw into In other words, it can become really
Speaker 1: quite disruptive. Now we could do the same thing inside Russia.
Speaker 1: I mean he needs to understand that. But I don't
Speaker 1: think he believes we're going to do it right. I
Speaker 1: don't think he feels that. You know, we're responding, and
Speaker 1: I think the last thing our president said, uh was
Speaker 1: we're gonna respond in kind. What does that mean? Put
Speaker 1: are saying, well, okay, well, what what is that going
Speaker 1: to what's that going to look like? But I think
Speaker 1: that's why you have to have a private discussion between
Speaker 1: intelligence people saying let me tell you what it looks like. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: so you know we have to star otherwise we're have
Speaker 1: you know, this is like a nircular weapon. You know,
Speaker 1: you have mutual destruction, right so at a certain point
Speaker 1: you don't do it right, you contain yourself and then
Speaker 1: we don't have that right now. Right now, the Russians field,
Speaker 1: you know, investing your system, You're not doing much in
Speaker 1: my system. I don't see any incentive to stop. I'm
Speaker 1: doing a lot of R and D right now. I'm testing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't need to be so flipped about it,
Speaker 1: but you know, I'm testing this and seeing how we
Speaker 1: can do this and how we can work within the
Speaker 1: U S system. Right. But if let's say we really
Speaker 1: got to the mat and we were, you know, at
Speaker 1: each other's throat, I mean, we're looking at small potatoes
Speaker 1: compared to what they could do and what we could do.
Speaker 1: What do you think the reaction in Moscow was to
Speaker 1: the January six insurrection and that that took place earlier
Speaker 1: this year. Were they surprised by that? Were they agitating
Speaker 1: by that? Or they're just very happy to sit back
Speaker 1: and say, hey, if you guys are gonna find amost yourselves,
Speaker 1: we could just you know, never get in the way
Speaker 1: of an enemy shooting themselves in the foot. I think
Speaker 1: it's the ladder which it happened so fast. It's the
Speaker 1: type of thing you can't prepare. But the other thing is,
Speaker 1: it's one thing that creative persona out there are about
Speaker 1: not my president, right, it's another one to deliberately be
Speaker 1: involved in a violent act against the capital. Right, that's
Speaker 1: a bit too risky, I think for even Putin, who
Speaker 1: is not risk avert I think you don't want to
Speaker 1: be caught out on that one. That absolutely requires an
Speaker 1: American response. That's pretty dynamic. So I don't think they
Speaker 1: had to tank the chance to evaluated way it. You know,
Speaker 1: it just happened too fast. But if you're asking me,
Speaker 1: how do they feel about it? It It, Wow, that's when
Speaker 1: we didn't have to work on. But that really worked
Speaker 1: out within our plan. It's now you know, we're now
Speaker 1: they're gonna have investigations that are going to turn on
Speaker 1: each other. So but we're looking at our own weaknesses
Speaker 1: and they're sitting there looking at them, and they're thinking
Speaker 1: about how do you left reach it? Remember, he studied,
Speaker 1: he's he was, he's a judo expert. I think he's
Speaker 1: a black belt design He under he understands how you
Speaker 1: use the other price and strength against him, right, and
Speaker 1: so so I think, you know these are judo place
Speaker 1: m that's really interesting. So you one of the things
Speaker 1: you wrote in the book that I found kind of
Speaker 1: intriguing was as long as there's an autocratic government in Moscow,
Speaker 1: there will be people willing to spy for the West.
Speaker 1: That raises two questions, why does an autocratic government lead
Speaker 1: to that? And second, why do Americans and Westerners occasionally
Speaker 1: spy for Russia? You would think in in the battle
Speaker 1: of good versus evil. It maybe it's not crystal clear,
Speaker 1: but but it seems like they've been the bad guy
Speaker 1: for a long time. Tell us a little bit about
Speaker 1: why people spy for us and why do people spy
Speaker 1: for them. There's a commonality on one level, and don't
Speaker 1: let me leave you without going there. But let me
Speaker 1: go to the first set of of issues on this.
Speaker 1: And as I said at the very beginning, working from
Speaker 1: a democratic system, we had much more of a drawal
Speaker 1: to get people to want to work with us, not
Speaker 1: just Russians, every group, right, and it was it was
Speaker 1: not a hard sell because a lot of people were
Speaker 1: dissatisfied with their own country because it was a repressive
Speaker 1: One might repressive, have a repressive but when you have
Speaker 1: an autocratic government, you have people that are much more
Speaker 1: disadvantaged and have do not have a release for their descent.
Speaker 1: The United States has lots of room for descent. You
Speaker 1: can say whatever you want, whatever you want, and you
Speaker 1: can go move on of another job and so on.
Speaker 1: So we have that that release and there are you know,
Speaker 1: percentage wide fewer people that our element. When Russia first
Speaker 1: started and the Communists started, right, there was an appeal
Speaker 1: people believed in communism. Right, we have a number of
Speaker 1: people both in the UK United States became spies, ideological spies,
Speaker 1: not for money but for the cause. But by the
Speaker 1: time you got the Stalin I mean, and then World
Speaker 1: War two broke out and Hitler and uh and Stalin
Speaker 1: agreed on how to handle Poland, I mean that everybody
Speaker 1: was disillusioned. So it was really hard and illogically after
Speaker 1: the fifties to get people to really want to become
Speaker 1: a communist, so they had a rupper product. But then
Speaker 1: there's the world. So in the bigger sweep of things,
Speaker 1: I think democracies have a big, bigger opportunity and fewer
Speaker 1: fewer posts that are spy candidates. But there are spy candidates,
Speaker 1: and I will get to that the right of the side.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people just discrantled and they
Speaker 1: came and volunteered their service. So many of the KGB
Speaker 1: sources and Jerry sources and people like that Kane dots
Speaker 1: rather than as people finding finding them. But then what
Speaker 1: makes people spy gets to another level, so you have
Speaker 1: the overarching ideological, economic, political, but then you have why
Speaker 1: as a person betrayed. And what's really interesting when you
Speaker 1: study the most famous spies, what I found is it's
Speaker 1: not about ideology. It's you take the famous American spy
Speaker 1: inside the CIA, Rick Games or Robert Hansen inside the FBI,
Speaker 1: and you look at their personalities and you find they
Speaker 1: share the same thing. They think they're really smart, smarter
Speaker 1: than everybody else. Sadly for them, they're not smarter than
Speaker 1: anybody else. But they are all so lazy. So when
Speaker 1: you have you think you're really smart, you're lazy, and
Speaker 1: you work inside the US government, you end up getting
Speaker 1: promoted less frequently, right, And then when you get proto
Speaker 1: that's frequently if the system is against you, right, you're
Speaker 1: not recognized for the genius that you are. You're not appreciated, right,
Speaker 1: and you become alienated within your small world. So people
Speaker 1: often defect inside of that world that they're disgruntled about
Speaker 1: the squeeze on their ego and their their recognition. And
Speaker 1: you know, you look at aims, and you look at
Speaker 1: hands and look at spies, they often have that in trade.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't look for someone that's a gambler drinker. Yes,
Speaker 1: look for them, uh um, but look for the person
Speaker 1: and had a huge ego and it's delusional about themselves
Speaker 1: and are underperforming. That's where I would go hunting for spies.
Speaker 1: And they're in every society. Quite interesting. I wish we
Speaker 1: had time to get to China, but will have to
Speaker 1: save that for the next time. I have to ask
Speaker 1: you before we get to our favorite questions. One last question.
Speaker 1: Another quote from the book, which is quote fundamentally the
Speaker 1: ultimate lesson to take away is this, never trust the Russians.
Speaker 1: Explain that I was going to name the at least
Speaker 1: the subtitle never Trust the Russians. So I had a
Speaker 1: plaque in my office. I now have a dono my
Speaker 1: house of the shore, and it's a quote from the
Speaker 1: last democratic president in Afghanistan seven of you Economy talks
Speaker 1: to his son and this is the quote and it says,
Speaker 1: my son, my sn My last advice to you is
Speaker 1: never trust the Russian Now, that plaque was given to
Speaker 1: me by Charlie Wilson, you know Charlie Wilson Court, which
Speaker 1: is what Charlie's were. And I go into the bug.
Speaker 1: It was actually the US government program, but the US
Speaker 1: government program doesn't make for movies, so I gotta look
Speaker 1: like Tom Hanks and like that, or Charlie Wilson didn't
Speaker 1: look like it. But my point is it had a
Speaker 1: sentimental because it was if you look at it from
Speaker 1: the eyes of the Afghanis. And I would say to
Speaker 1: them today, watch the Russians on your border today. But
Speaker 1: I don't mean it in the sure sense that never
Speaker 1: ever ever trust them. But in this day and age,
Speaker 1: I would say you need to pay more attention to
Speaker 1: what they're they're up to. I honestly believe that some
Speaker 1: were out there there may be an opportunity to do
Speaker 1: business with them and they and I'm more I think
Speaker 1: the natural course of events would be to bring us together.
Speaker 1: But I think for for today, the manager is really
Speaker 1: meant to say, hey, look, pay attention. The Russians are
Speaker 1: not benign and so you really can't trust um, you know,
Speaker 1: standing in front of the Helsinki and saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean the next KGB got there for I can
Speaker 1: tell you that no, we're not spying on you, and
Speaker 1: it's anoxy more and but so my point is, uh,
Speaker 1: this is a moment to remember who Russia is. So
Speaker 1: it's not communism. They're not coming to they'd be more
Speaker 1: threatening if they had an ideology. There is no ideology.
Speaker 1: So let's jump to our speed round our favorite five questions.
Speaker 1: We ask all our guests, starting with tell us what
Speaker 1: you're streaming these days? Give us your favorite Netflix or
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime viewing material. You know it's interesting. Let me
Speaker 1: start with what I don't watch, which I think will
Speaker 1: surprise your audience. You know I don't watch in James
Speaker 1: Bond movies, right, don't watch most five movies. Uh. I
Speaker 1: used to resent them because I thought this isn't the
Speaker 1: way it is that trivializes the business. And then I
Speaker 1: began to realize, sees, if everyone thinks I'm James Bond,
Speaker 1: they think I'm I'm lipping in. If you know what
Speaker 1: I look like, uh, Connor, you would know white. I'm
Speaker 1: more favorbly disposed to work those seve but I um
Speaker 1: to be interesting. I will look did look at a
Speaker 1: couple of the caras. The first ones were good, the
Speaker 1: slid came in from the gul But basically I really
Speaker 1: go to another place. I look at Masterpiece theater. You know,
Speaker 1: I'll watch you know, the Crown or some things by
Speaker 1: Jane this and you say, well, that's kind of light stuff,
Speaker 1: but you know, it's such a relief and you get
Speaker 1: back to a world where people have manners and personal
Speaker 1: dignity and so on. So I find those tranquilizing in
Speaker 1: the most positive sense. So I'm I'm a big fan
Speaker 1: of the pps that I lived in Britain for for
Speaker 1: a substantial amount of time, and I grew to enjoy
Speaker 1: that and so on. So that's where you'll find me
Speaker 1: on Prime and Netflix. Uh, most often on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I did an awful lot of podcasts during the promotion
Speaker 1: of the book, and I enjoyed doing by the way, UM,
Speaker 1: but I'm not a follower of the particular podcast. I
Speaker 1: spend a lot of time going through what I would
Speaker 1: call the more traditional media outlets and uh, and I
Speaker 1: probably if I had more time, I should since should
Speaker 1: focus in on podcast I enjoyed several several of them,
Speaker 1: but UM, I tend not to be a podcast follower
Speaker 1: except my own. Tell us about some of your early
Speaker 1: mentors who helped shape your career in the world of intelligence.
Speaker 1: One of the great things about writing a book, and
Speaker 1: we could spend a lot of time on the advantage
Speaker 1: of writing a book and things that I did not
Speaker 1: think I would get out of it. One of one
Speaker 1: of those as a young person, you said, well, I
Speaker 1: made it by myself, right, That's how I got there.
Speaker 1: And then you go back, you write a book. He said,
Speaker 1: We'll wait a minute, start looking at your career and
Speaker 1: at every step of the way. And this is a
Speaker 1: tribute to all of them, that I had a series
Speaker 1: of bosses one after the other, but actually put up
Speaker 1: with me so and mentored me and stopped me from
Speaker 1: stepping on on on my foot. If you're will and
Speaker 1: uh you know from my first chief and Chili and
Speaker 1: I can't be care with the names because some are
Speaker 1: not and some are. But at every step of the way,
Speaker 1: the agency seemed to reach out and pull me towards
Speaker 1: something positive. And I think in retrospect, I ran the
Speaker 1: things like Chili and Afghanistan, so I was predisposed to
Speaker 1: sort of the action arm of it. So I I
Speaker 1: owe uh I easily. In the book, it's very clearly
Speaker 1: I described each of them is sort of putting a
Speaker 1: helping helping hand is the right word. I don't know
Speaker 1: how I would have gotten to survive my first assignment
Speaker 1: without bosses that were uh um, interested in being helpful.
Speaker 1: They called trade craft. The business is spying, and you
Speaker 1: know it's the word craft is really interesting. It's like
Speaker 1: a journeyman, right, And the best of the best managers
Speaker 1: in CIA that I worked for looked at as a
Speaker 1: trade jack. We're going to show you. You know, you
Speaker 1: went through training, you jumped the planes, but we're going
Speaker 1: to show you how it really works. And I'm very
Speaker 1: grateful and I admired the generation of people that I
Speaker 1: worked for that, uh, we're true pat There was one
Speaker 1: thing they all had in common. There were very diverse people,
Speaker 1: they were all true patriots and and at high integrity.
Speaker 1: I know that's a hard adjective for people to swallow
Speaker 1: and CIA, but you'd be amazed of the dichotomy between
Speaker 1: the integrity inside the institution and how it exercised power
Speaker 1: with approval of department adjusted. Quite quite interesting. Tell us
Speaker 1: about some of your favorite books and and what you're
Speaker 1: reading recently. Well, I think the one I've been enjoying
Speaker 1: and I've been going through it slowly, and I actually
Speaker 1: think it's very apropos I got so much out of it.
Speaker 1: It's Ulysses S. Grant by run turn off. Now why
Speaker 1: is it important? You know, you look at the Civil
Speaker 1: War and everybody and Robert E. Lee, the great general,
Speaker 1: the you know, feather in his hat and all this,
Speaker 1: and you look at the scrumpy cigar ashes on his coat.
Speaker 1: Drank too much unussy, says Brand. But when I dug
Speaker 1: into the book, there was something I didn't know. He
Speaker 1: was a quartermaster words. He knew how to make things move.
Speaker 1: When you look at the Civil War, so much of
Speaker 1: war fighting, and this comes to I want to come
Speaker 1: to Afghanistan. Logistics. I mean the real heroes of not
Speaker 1: Charlie Wilson, Jack Divide, uh well Bearden, but it's it's
Speaker 1: the logistics guy, people to make the mules get where
Speaker 1: they want to go and the guns where they are,
Speaker 1: helping the negotia. There's logistics and Afghanistan in many ways.
Speaker 1: And when you go to the war, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: you need a mccarthur here and there perhaps, but you
Speaker 1: really need the logistics guy. And unless he says, Brand
Speaker 1: was the logistics guy. And when you look at his formation,
Speaker 1: it tells you about value do things. So when I
Speaker 1: have time, I spent a lot of time reading newspapers
Speaker 1: and magazines, and because I'm required to stay up in
Speaker 1: the world, I tend to go to biographies and history
Speaker 1: and I found a lot. You know, Doris Currency went
Speaker 1: on Tap that I read last year, which who thinks
Speaker 1: about Tap? And when you read it an amazing career.
Speaker 1: Not gonna be in president, but you know, proconsul and
Speaker 1: the Philippines and on the Supreme Court. I got halfway
Speaker 1: through one on Pulk and I started on McCulloch's Pioneers
Speaker 1: and who think who thought of Ohio was being a
Speaker 1: pioneer state and what it took Americans in the world
Speaker 1: they lived, and he would think it was it was
Speaker 1: one of the formative aspects of our life. And then
Speaker 1: the one that I've enjoyed is a fun book, because
Speaker 1: I don't read a lot of fun books, and maybe
Speaker 1: I should someday. This is a great book that's going
Speaker 1: to make a movie out of it. It's just taking
Speaker 1: forever and it's poisoned about that really about the crew
Speaker 1: team that raced in the nineteen thirty six Olympics, the
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany and what it took to get there. The
Speaker 1: the lumberjacked out of Wisconsin going to that race, and
Speaker 1: hinching out of victory. And it's also you can find
Speaker 1: it on on online that they look it up, safety read,
Speaker 1: look up nineteen thirty six Olympics rowing. I mean it's
Speaker 1: it's America at its best. So I enjoyed it was
Speaker 1: a good read. And uh, and I do tend to
Speaker 1: stick to biographies. Interesting. What sort of advice would you
Speaker 1: give to a recent college grad who was interested in
Speaker 1: a career in either government service or intelligence. The scenicna
Speaker 1: and this is you really want to be a you
Speaker 1: really have the one to serve your country? And he said, well,
Speaker 1: that's the crssade, of course you do. Now you really
Speaker 1: have to say, is this you will you will not
Speaker 1: get through the door. It's the it's the glue that
Speaker 1: holds it together. The second thing I would say is, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, make sure your education is broad based. You
Speaker 1: know someone's gonna say, look, China is the place learn Chinese.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe maybe it won't be, you know, maybe things
Speaker 1: that happen here by the time you get ready. Um,
Speaker 1: the broad broad based and understanding the history of not
Speaker 1: in in this country of the world. I would invest.
Speaker 1: I would invest in that and not worry too much
Speaker 1: about the specialization and study and read, read the best
Speaker 1: books written on it, and servedly please include mind that's
Speaker 1: the first. I should have said, that's number one. But
Speaker 1: um no, I think it's having a world view. And
Speaker 1: as I said, I really wanted to serve your country
Speaker 1: is critical. You want to make a dollar that may
Speaker 1: not be the best place interesting. And our final question,
Speaker 1: what do you know about the world of intelligence counterintelligence
Speaker 1: spycraft today that you wish you knew forty years or
Speaker 1: so ago when you were first getting started. Uh that's
Speaker 1: a profound, a profound question. I I would say that
Speaker 1: again from my perspective. Um, Graham, Cream write a book.
Speaker 1: You know the human factor and that what the essence
Speaker 1: of the human factor is the best laid plans of
Speaker 1: mice and men. Right, whatever your plan, whatever you're doing,
Speaker 1: you gotta double your planning triple. You're planning because something
Speaker 1: is going to happen and you're not you're not ready
Speaker 1: for it. And uh, you know, if we we look
Speaker 1: at modern events in Central Asia, Uh, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: having the plumbing in planning. Uh, the importance of planning.
Speaker 1: The other thing that I would say, and I should
Speaker 1: have said this almost first, and I found the paucity
Speaker 1: of it. I thought, at every level I went up,
Speaker 1: I would get to the level where there's strategic thinking right,
Speaker 1: and you keep looking for it. And then I found
Speaker 1: that most of most of the intelligence role, most of
Speaker 1: the world is is around tactical thinking, what are we
Speaker 1: going to do today? What are we doing tomorrow? And
Speaker 1: it's very hard to build into life and the strategic things.
Speaker 1: And of all places, uh, a retreatment head of the
Speaker 1: Plumber's union that was sixteen came to me and he said,
Speaker 1: remember three things. Firm handshake, never have your picture taken
Speaker 1: with a drink in your hand. And spend the first
Speaker 1: five minutes before you get out of bed thinking about
Speaker 1: the bigger aspects of your life. And that's a good
Speaker 1: I mean from a blue collar guy. That's you know,
Speaker 1: high level thinking. And I would say for young people,
Speaker 1: make sure you put time in the strategic be thinking
Speaker 1: and not just how to get from me to be
Speaker 1: quite quite interesting. Jack Divine, thank you for being so
Speaker 1: generous with your time. We have been speaking with long
Speaker 1: term CIA veteran Jack Divine, author most recently of The
Speaker 1: Spymaster's Prism, The Fight against Russian Aggression. If you enjoyed
Speaker 1: this conversation, Well, be sure and check out any of
Speaker 1: our prior three hundred and sixty seven conversations we've had before.
Speaker 1: You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, wherever you find
Speaker 1: your favorite podcasts. We love your comments, feedback and suggestions
Speaker 1: right to us at m IB podcast at Bloomberg dot net.
Speaker 1: You can sign up for my daily reads at ritals
Speaker 1: dot com. Follow me on Twitter at rit Halts. I
Speaker 1: would be remiss if I forgot to mention our crack
Speaker 1: staff that helps put these conversations together each week. Tim
Speaker 1: Harrow is my audio engineer. A Tika val Bran is
Speaker 1: my project manager. My Kaelbatnick is my director of research.
Speaker 1: Paris Walter is my producer. I'm Barrier Bults. You've been
Speaker 1: listening to Passers of Business. I'm Bloomberg Ridd