WASHINGTON – The Biden administration warned the Kremlin on Thursday about the CIA’s conclusion that Russia secretly offered payments to militants to encourage more killings of US and coalition troops in Afghanistan, and issued the diplomatic reprimand for sanctioning Moscow instituted due to his burglary and election interference. .
But the government has stopped imposing sanctions on any Russian officials over the alleged bounties, making it clear that the available evidence of what happened – mainly what Afghan detainees told interrogators – is still lacking in the CIA’s assessment that Russia probably paid money, to definitely prove rewarding attacks.
The intelligence community, a senior administration official told reporters, “judged with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officials attempted to encourage Taliban attacks on US and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019, and perhaps earlier, among others. through financial incentives and compensation. “
The New York Times reported for the first time last summer that the CIA’s assessment was and that the National Security Council had led an interagency process to develop a range of response options – but that the months had passed and that the Trump White House does not authorize any response, not even a diplomatic protest.
The Times also reported that the available evidence behind the assessment focused on the fact that detainees believed to be part of a criminal militant network linked to the Taliban told interrogators, along with suspicious travel patterns and financial transfers, and that the CIA medium has placed confidence in its conclusion.
But, it also reports, the National Security Agency – which focuses on electronic surveillance – has placed less confidence in the assessment, citing the lack of electronic intercepts for firearms. Analysts from two other agencies consulted, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Defense Intelligence Agency, are said to be divided, with the former supporting the CIA and the latter the National Security Agency.
Former intelligence officials, including witnesses before the congress, have noted that it is rare in the dark world of intelligence to have evidence in the courtroom at all, beyond a reasonable doubt about what an opponent is doing in secret.
The review of available evidence by President Biden’s government has revealed nothing new and meaningful to give the muddy intelligence portrait greater clarity, so the disagreement over confidence levels remained, an official familiar with internal deliberation said.
The statement from the Biden official to reporters joins the bill.
Intelligence agencies, the official explained, “have a low to moderate confidence in this ruling, in part because it depends on prisoner reporting, and because of the challenging operating environment, in Afghanistan.”
“Our conclusion,” the official continued, “is based on information and evidence of links between criminals in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government.”
The official did not elaborate further. One problem with the available evidence, The Times also reported last year, was that the leader of the suspected criminal-militant network that allegedly spoke directly to Russian intelligence officials, Rahmatullah Azizi, fled to Russia – possibly while carrying a passport linked to a Russian espionage agency.
The New Washington
As a result, the detainees who told the interrogators what they were told about the alleged arrangement were not themselves in the room for talks with Russian intelligence officials. Without an electronic interception, there was also an evidence pattern that matched the CIA’s assessment, but no explicit eyewitness account of the interactions.
The Russian government has denied that it secretly offered or paid bounties to carry out attacks on US and coalition troops in Afghanistan.
The public announcement of the CIA’s evaluation – and the response to the White House’s months of inaction – has led to a two-pronged uproar in Congress. President Donald J. Trump described the report as a joke as the defense of the act, and his White House denied that he was told about it and tried to dismiss the intelligence assessment as too weak to be taken seriously.
In fact, it was included in its written information oversight in late February 2020 and disseminated more widely to the intelligence community in early May.
But it was also true that National Security Agency analysts disagree with the CIA on how much confidence they should place in the agency’s conclusion, based on the imperfect array of available evidence. The Trump administration played that split.
In testimony before Congress on the issue, Michael J. Morell, a former acting CIA director, disputes the White House’s proposal that such a review should be unanimously supported by intelligence agencies in order to be taken seriously.
In previous administrations, he said in July last year, had the intelligence community judged such information at any level of trust, officials would have immediately told the president and congressional leaders of the verdict and any disagreement. If the confidence level was low, he said, an administration would seek more information before acting, while a medium or high confidence assessment would likely lead to an answer.
“You never have certainty in intelligence,” he said. Morell added.
Mr. Trump never raised the issue of abundance intelligence in his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. But after the CIA’s assessment became public, senior military and diplomatic officials, including then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, warned their peers.
“If the Russians offer money to kill Americans or, for that matter, to other Westerners, there will be a huge price to pay. That’s what I shared with Lavrov, ”Pompeo said during a trip to the Czech Republic in August. ‘I know our army has also spoken to their senior leaders. We will not haunt it. We will not tolerate it. ”
In testimony before Congress and in other remarks, senior Pentagon officials – caught between not wanting to aggravate the White House and appear indifferent to the safety of troops – said they would be furious if the CIA assessment was correct , but also had yet to see any definitive proof.
“It is not closed because we never close investigations that involve threats or potential threats against U.S. troops,” Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie jr., The head of the Pentagon’s central command, said late last year when asked about the status of the investigation. . “We’m looking at it very hard.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Biden as presidential candidate mr. Trump attacked because he did nothing about the CIA assessment, portraying it as part of a strange pattern of reverence he said Mr. Trump showed towards Russia. Mr. Biden mentions the issue in his speech on the acceptance of the Democratic nomination and raises it in his first call as president along with Mr. Putin.
While the sanctions imposed on Thursday were based on alleged Russian misconduct other than the alleged bounties, the senior administration official said diplomatic action over the available information regarding alleged bounties placed a burden on the Russian government to explain his actions and take action. to address this disturbing pattern of behavior. ”
The officer added: “We can and will not accept the target of our staff like this.”
Julian E. Barnes and Eric Schmitt contribution made.