Russian Strategic Intentions, Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes presentation of key excerpts of the “Strategic Multiyear Assessment”(SMA) prepared for the U.S. Military Joint Chiefs of Staff by key defense policy analysts. It examines Russia’s global interests and objectives, as well as the activities—gray or otherwise—that it conducts to achieve them.

How Should the US Respond?

Determine Intent to Avoid Unintended Consequences Understanding why actors are violating norms (e.g., boundary testing, system breakage) reduces the probability of unintended escalation and informs the development of deterrent measures. Intent and attribution are inherently problematic in the gray zone. However, mistakenly attributing aggressive intent when an action is taken in ignorance of the consequences, or in self-defense, may lead to interpreting an action incorrectly as gray and thus potentially threatening. A response based on faulty interpretation may be perceived as aggressive as well as unprovoked and increase tensions and the probability of unwanted escalation. Conversely, interpreting as benign an action that is in fact part of a gray strategy risks missing the window of opportunity for derailing that strategy before it becomes a done deal.

Stay Engaged and Respond Early Inaction in the face of low-level gray actions can, over time, create a “new reality” that threatens US interests and security. At that point, reversion to the status quo ante will likely require much greater, and more costly actions, and may not be possible without the use of military force. Part of the reason Russia is choosing to operate in the gray zone is its perception that the US will not respond to lower level actions for fear of triggering escalation. US failure to develop early, effective response options reinforces this perception. An enduring, proactive presence and consistent messaging across all USG agencies is a significantly superior approach to taking select actions in response to Russian aggression. This approach would be aided by the DoD expanding its definitions of maneuver and objectives to better account for the human aspects of military operations.

What Capabilities Does the US Need? Engagment with population across multiple arenas (economic, political, media and others) is a defining characteristic of many gray actions and all gray strategies. Gray zone actors are consistently engaging with populations within and outside their borders, in efforts to effectively set the narrative for both their own actions and motivations, and those of the US. Unless and until the US does the same, it will be at a disadvantage in addressing gray zone challenges. Across all aspects of gray zone identification and response, one central theme emerges from the work done for this project: The US needs to think more broadly and deepen our understanding of the human / cognitive domain. We cannot afford to ignore populations, or engage with them only once a crisis has erupted.

A richer understanding of the operational environment provides the essential context for identifying those actors that are likely to engage in behavior the US considers to be gray, and a potential threat to US and/or partner nation interests. Understanding the drivers and buffers of stability within specific regions and countries can help analysts and planners identify actors that are likely to be vulnerable to another actor’s gray actions and strategies. It can also help identify the actors they are vulnerable to in specific areas (e.g. domestic political influence by Russia, or economic pressure or reward from China). For any response or deterrent action taken by the US and partner nations to be effective, we also need to be able to anticipate with greater accuracy the likely population response (at the group level, not just the state level) to our actions. Figure 2 highlights the aspects of the gray zone on which the SMA team analyses indicated the US and partner nations should build understanding. It also shows the areas in which the analyses suggest the US should further develop in order to improve both I&W and responses to gray zone challenges.

Deeper Understanding of the Human/Cognitive Domain When considering capabilities in the context of gray zone challenges, we need to think first in terms of information. Information provides a richer understanding of the operating environment and emphasizes the human/cognitive domain.

This is very dangerous levitra without prescription because it may lead to mild or severe side effects. Chain smokers are at higher risk of impotence as smoking viagra sildenafil narrows arteries, which further affects blood flow. You should also practice regencygrandenursing.com cialis overnight shipping exercises like meditation, yoga and Pranayam. In cancer patients, when radiotherapy has been used and the prostrate gland has been removed, the regencygrandenursing.com viagra generika nerves that are extending down to your spine and exiting through a series of openings.

Specifically, the US must:

• Broaden its understanding of the strategic and operational environments to better incorporate the human / cognitive domain

• Consider the non-military arenas and non-state level of the gray zone when developing I&W, and deterrence and response options

• Think beyond purely kinetic responses and develop ways to shape the international environment to reduce the motivation for actors to engage in gray activities in the first place. This will require addressing the broad question of the sustainability of a global system built on norms that are not implicitly accepted by all major powers

• Build trust and credibility with partner nations to enable greater coordination of effort in collective gray zone deterrence and response activities, as well as earlier I&W or gray zone activity against vulnerable partners

• Narratives are not the only tool for building influence. Explore other (non- military) levers of power the US can use to increase its influence without violating or undermining international norms

Develop Clear and Compelling Strategic Narratives

• The US lacks a compelling “story” to present as a counter to competing narratives. We need to better articulate US interests and strategy to both ourselves and others

• Establish the extent to which the target population trusts the US, and have in place strategies to bolster that trust when it is low, prior to engaging in any narrative messaging

• US messaging (and objectives) must be consistent across the USG agencies working in specific regions and countries. This will require coordination and communication across agencies

Conclusion

The findings from the SMA Gray Zone Project suggest that the capabilities to effectively respond to gray activities are, in some ways, as fluid as those activities themselves. Russia’s gray activities and strategy continue to evolve and adapt, so any capability to respond must itself be adaptable. Rather than focus on specific means (which will continue to change), US capabilities should focus on ends such as containing Russian influence and maintaining an international system consistent with US interests.

Toward this end, much of the SMA teams’ discussion and findings regarding response options in the gray zone coalesce around the role of influence. In particular, how the US can increase its ability to influence international state and non-state actors, and minimize the influence of actors potentially detrimental to the status quo, or to US interests specifically. For this, we need a better understanding of the human / cognitive domain, which can only be achieved with a combination of richer information and conceptual models and frameworks to guide search and interpretation.

Picture: Putin, (Pixabay)

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]