InterRegional for Strategic Analysis

InterRegional for Strategic Analysis hosted Professor of International Relations and Head of the Department of National Security at Jagiellonian University in Poland, Dr. Artur Gruszczak. During two successive panel discussions, Dr. Gruszczak discussed the state of intelligence in Europe, with an emphasis on the Russia-Ukraine war as an example. He presented his view of the developments and near-term outcomes of the war.State of IntelligenceDr. Gruszczak reviewed the development of intelligence cooperation between European Union countries as follows:1. Multiple intelligence functions in the case of the European Union: According to Dr. Gruszczak, intelligence in the EU has multiple functions, including "utilitarian support," where EU institutions need quality, effective support and reliable advice to achieve "situational awareness." This type of support is called "situational" given its effectiveness for EU institutions, which do not want to appear easy to exploit or hack.Another area is research-based intelligence, in which the EU wants to develop research to improve its capability and expand its perspective on many matters. Today, this includes artificial intelligence (AI), which represents an additional challenge that makes it difficult to apply AI to traditional intelligence.The third field is related to expectation and foresight, which are the essence of intelligence work, including warnings and predictions. The EU must strengthen its capabilities in this field, which will help it better solve crises and enhance security within member states, including predicting natural disasters, whose increasing frequency in recent years has led to human losses.2. Improvement of European imagery intelligence capabilities: According to Dr. Gruszczak, the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) is important because it performs tasks involving imagery intelligence capabilities. The EU does not have significant capabilities in this area, but some member states do, particularly France, which has its own satellites, as well as Germany, which has facilities that help gather data via satellite. The latter play a major role in collecting data from hard-to-access areas. The EU’s geospatial capabilities are highly advanced and have greatly improved over the past years.3. European interest in cybersecurity cooperation: Dr. Gruszczak noted that the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) cooperates with government agencies in member states concerned with cybersecurity. Such cooperation has increased in recent years due to the increasing number of cyberattacks, especially from China, North Korea, Russia, and India.4. Agreement on establishing a European intelligence academy: According to Dr. Gruszczak, "in 2017, Macron called for the creation of a European intelligence university. I believe that a common culture must absolutely be established to achieve a better understanding of events, as well as a common language for those working in this field. Many countries were enthusiastic about this idea, and, subsequently, we saw the creation of an intelligence academy in the capital of Croatia in February. While formal proceedings are still pending, the letter of intent to establish this academy has been signed by various groups."5. Europol’s development of a European criminal intelligence model: According to Dr. Gruszczak, the skepticism and mistrust of criminal intelligence were overcome when the member states realized that the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) was very useful. This became obvious when some of the EU’s major players—such as France, Germany, Spain, and others—came to a political decision to transform their cooperation frameworks from bilateral to multilateral cooperation. For example, cooperation between the German and French police is through Europol, which has developed a model for European criminal intelligence that has proved effective, particularly when applied to certain crimes.Existing ChallengesDr. Gruszczak presented some challenges and obstacles to achieving strong European intelligence cooperation, as follows:1. Declining European integration in the fields of security and defense: According to Dr. Gruszczak, "nations face different threats, and thus each country has policies specific to it. Among EU countries, there is integration in the economy, foreign policy, and other areas, but when it comes to defense and security policy, we find inadequate integration. There are many obstacles and divisions among member states in this area."Gruszczak added: "The EU is a unique organization because it supersedes the nation. Decisions at the EU level are made through EU institutions, some of which represent governments, such as the European Council, which represents the concerns of member states and seeks common understanding. However, it is not necessary to reach a consensus or unanimity on a particular policy. This is a real problem, as is the situation with the European Parliament, which participates in the decision-making process at the level of EU countries, which are democratically elected."2. Emergence of some positive initiatives in intelligence cooperation: According to Dr. Gruszczak, there is "positive intelligence cooperation at the European level. For example, several initiatives have emerged from all member states to combat terrorist attacks and secure EU missions abroad, for example, in the Balkans, West Africa, the Sahel, and so on."3. Narrow intelligence cooperation in limited fields: Dr. Gruszczak explained that some complaints have arisen from member states and the European Commission. The latter has said that it is not adequately informed of the details of intelligence cooperation among countries, while the member states have said that they need mechanisms to ensure that their intelligence cooperation will be secure, with no unauthorized interference or use of sensitive information against any country.In the 2010s, the European Commission emphasized that member state intelligence on matters concerning their national security remains the sole responsibility of the state. Thus, we see that intelligence between the EU has been limited to certain areas only.Moreover, the European Commission has disclaimed its responsibility to provide any mechanisms for this type of cooperation, declared itself unable to do so, and that such cooperation is not related to its scope of work but solely concerns the governments of member states. Such statements are considered shocking, especially for the countries interested in creating agencies and entities to strengthen intelligence cooperation and promote the work of already existing institutions that have performed well, including the Intelligence and Situational Center (INTCEN), which issues nearly 500 briefings a year on both domestic and foreign affairs.4. INTCEN’s handling of important crises: Dr. Gruszczak explained that INTCEN was founded by Javier Solana, who had broad expertise. In the early 2000s, Solana said that he would establish his own body to support his mission, and this organization was formed. Although it did not have particular success when it was first founded in 2012, after 2014 and 2015, with the crisis in Crimea and the European immigration crisis, its role began to emerge, including its role in Middle Eastern affairs.5. Missing elements for the success of the "Strategic Compass" project: Dr. Gruszczak noted that, in Europe, there are agencies concerned with defense intelligence, civil intelligence, police agencies, and others, which operate separately and independently with their own headquarters. There are other agencies, like those that focus on EU diplomacy. The information gathered from each of these agencies is processed and combined through the EU Strategic Compass Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC), whose importance stems from being the only project of its kind that provides comprehensive intelligence from sources. The project is highly ambitious, but the EU lacks the necessary capabilities to implement it.Ukraine ExampleDr. Gruszczak offered his view of developments in the Ukraine war, with a focus on the intelligence aspect, as follows:1. Lack of European intelligence coordination in the war: Dr. Gruszczak explained that the Ukraine war is not the first crisis facing the EU, but strategic independence is an important factor in this context. Enhanced cooperation will depend on whether and to what extent strategic independence is achieved. With regard to traditional security, the US provides Europe’s defense capabilities, as well as intelligence, i.e., tactical and operational intelligence. Hence, intelligence is a major weak spot for Europe, which does not have an intelligence agency able to issue independent intelligence product without US intervention. Although France has ambitions to change this, it remains out of reach, particularly since military intelligence relies on several distinct elements and advanced technologies.2. Reshaping the world order post-Ukraine war: Dr. Gruszczak mentioned that, while the war in Ukraine continues, we are seeing a new conflict flare up in Gaza, which will also have repercussions. However, in his opinion, the main factor behind all these conflicts is the attempt by some revisionist powers, like Russia, China, Iran, and Israel to some extent, to refashion the world order, particularly the global security system. This depends on our view of Israel. Is it an independent global actor? An arm of the US? Or a regional power, as it always claims?For Russia, China is a key partner, but China is a strategic winner regardless of outcome of the war because of Russia’s increasing dependence on China in several areas. Of course, China does not consider this an ideal position, but it is an opportunity to revise the global security system, challenge US might, and build a new multilateral order led by China. China aspires to be the dominant power by 2049. We already see these plans being realized in the area of technology and military technology, where the gap between China and the US is shrinking.3. Weak Western response to Russia’s moves: According to Dr. Gruszczak, Putin’s view of the Ukrainian people is based on denying they are an independent entity and people with their own language and history. This has prompted him to try to annex Ukraine to Russian territory. Although this is not a new issue—we saw the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, and the invasion of Ukraine’s eastern territories, with evidence that separatists there were trained by Russia—the state of the conflict today is testing Russia’s capabilities as well as the Western response, which has been very weak. Countries such as Germany and France have made proposals in the Normandy Format, including inviting Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.4. Kyiv’s efforts to strengthen its military power during the war: Dr. Gruszczak explained that there is now an impasse along the battle lines, adding that "I believe that this situation will continue through the first half of the coming year, until the spring, by April or May of 2024, with Ukraine remobilizing its forces to stop the next Russian attack that Moscow has been planning and preparing for some time. We have seen this in Russia’s continuing, months-long mobilization, its arms investments, and its deals signed with China and Iran in this regard."5. Putin’s desire to achieve a historic accomplishment during his era: According to Dr. Gruszczak, Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that the time has come to achieve something historic. He is a very selfish and narcissistic person whose colleagues complained about his narcissism when he was an intelligence officer. Now, he is trying to manipulate history and reshape the Russian Republic, beginning with Ukraine, the relatively weaker country, saying there is no future for Russia without Ukraine.6. The situation in Ukraine has turned into a "war of attrition": Dr. Gruszczak stated that the failure of Russia’s military plan to determine the war and its lack of a strategic vision became obvious in the first weeks. The military operation quickly became a war of attrition, a state in which it remains today. The war has had negative repercussions on both parties but has been more dangerous for Ukraine because of its weak resources. By contrast, Russia has greater military resources in terms of weapons and troops. Ukraine has a shortage of these resources and has lost many lives and much equipment, although Russia has also borne many losses.7. Remote feasibility of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in the war: According to historical Russian practices, per Dr. Gruszczak, if a country shows its weakness, this weakness must be exploited. The Soviet Union only recognized great powers like the US during the Cold War. This is important in diplomacy since it is difficult to negotiate with the Russians because they always exploit opportunities and the other side’s weaknesses. Hence, negotiation is not applicable to the situation between Russia and Ukraine.The Russians have exploited the weak political situation in Ukraine, including a weak president willing to negotiate, a crumbling economy, and a society divided by ethnic differences. Dr. Gruszczak thinks this has become clear now. From another perspective, Russia is aware that it is losing the competition with other major powers, not only with the US but also with China, India, and other rising powers, as indicated by the fact that many industries in Russia are based on Western technology. Russia’s growth in these fields has not been independent, as is the case with advanced and developing countries, and advanced countries always own advanced technologies.In conclusion, Dr. Gruszczak noted that Russia’s problem is not the regime, as Putin’s advisors from the private security agencies and armed forces all strongly support him. Even if he were to be replaced for any reason—not by a popular revolution, but if he dies, for example—the new leadership will still hold the same ideas. For Russia, any defeat in the current war will have disastrous societal consequences. Hence, Moscow cannot imagine losing the war and is looking for any positive outcome in Ukraine. If such a positive outcome does not consist of seizing Ukrainian territory, then Ukraine must at least have a pro-Russia president.

Eastern European's New Security Challenges After Ukraine War (Panel Discussion)