Thursday, July 14, 2016


The Power Vertical

Resetting The Siloviki

Twilight on Red Square near the Kremlin in Moscow.
Twilight on Red Square near the Kremlin in Moscow.
In anticipation of his return to the Kremlin, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin appears to be preparing -- or at least considering -- an overhaul of the country's security services.

The official government daily "Rossiiskaya gazeta" reported on September 28 that General Aleksandr Shlyakhturov, head of the GRU, would be stepping down in the near future. The official confirmation followed anonymously sourced reports in "Izvestiya" and elsewhere that the 65-year old Shlyakhturov was on his way out.

"Rossiiskaya gazeta" made a point of stressing that Shlyakhturov was retiring and his departure was routine. "It would be correct to say that Shlyahturova has served the military for a very long time and is leaving because he has reached the maximum age of service. This was inevitable. There is no intrigue connected to this," the daily wrote.

There was nothing routine, however, about Shlyakhturov's brief tenure as head of Russia's super-secret military intelligence agency. Shlyakhturov took over as GRU head in 2009 when his predecessor, Valentin Korabelnikov, was fired for resisting Kremlin efforts to reform and streamline the military.

A close ally of Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, Shlyakhturov was clearly appointed to carry out the changes Korabelnikov was resisting.

In his "Spooks And Scoundrels" column in "The Moscow News," Mark Galeotti, a professor at New York University and author of the blog "In Moscow's Shadows," sketched out the extent that the GRU has been downsized under Shlyakhturov (h/t to Moscow News editor Tim Wall for tweeting this):

In the past two years, it has lost over 1,000 officers, some sacked, some retired, others transferred out of their cushy Moscow billets to regular army commands across the country. The GRU’s generals have faced a particular cull: of 100 or so who used to serve, only about 20 are left.
It has also lost the Spetsnaz special forces. It used to have eight commando brigades: three have been disbanded, the rest transferred again into the regular military. Most of the GRU’s 'residencies' – the separate intelligence offices it ran inside Russian embassies abroad – have been closed down, or reduced to a single officer working as a military attaché. Only in the neighboring countries of the 'Near Abroad' does the GRU maintain anything like its old espionage networks.

He adds that more changes could be on the way:

There is talk of the GRU -- technically the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff – being downgraded next year to an ordinary directorate. That may not sound like a big deal, but in the past, the GRU enjoyed privileged access to Putin and Medvedev. Now the GRU increasingly has to work just for the Chief of the General Staff instead.

Galeotti writes that the overhaul of the GRU "reflects a stocktaking of the intelligence agencies as Putin prepares to return to power" next year. And while it might seem counterintuitive that Putin would target his main power base -- the siloviki -- the move actually makes sense:

[Putin] draws his support from the spooks, but he also wants efficiency and obedience. The GRU often duplicated the work of the SVR and instead he wants it to concentrate on what it is best at: true military espionage, work in Central Asia and the Caucasus and, one may suspect, occasional assassinations of enemies abroad.
Putin was once a spook; he believes in them and draws many of his closest allies from their ranks. But he also knows that left to their own devices they will tend to be distracted by futile turf wars. They also get too big for their own boots and from time to time need reminding who’s boss. In this respect, the GRU is simply the sacrificial victim of the hour. The FSB and SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service], though, are expected to learn the lesson.

They may, in fact, already be learning it. As I have blogged here and here, in the wake of the Anna Chapman spy scandal last summer, stories began appearing in the Russian media suggesting that Putin was going to use that fiasco as an excuse to overhaul the SVR with the goal of ultimately merging it into the FSB -- essentially re-creating the monolithic KGB of old.

Here's an excerpt from a report by Argumenti.ru at the time that cited anonymous intelligence sources as saying an FSB-SVR merger was imminent:

This will lead to better coordination in the fight against terrorist acts. At this time, the interaction between the SVR and the FSB is quite weak. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other regions where terrorists are in a strong position requires that this coordination be improved, including in the exchange of information.

I haven't seen much more on this since (if any siloviki watchers out there have, I'd love to hear about it), but the changes at the GRU suggest that a siloviki-wide reorganization could be in the cards.

-- Brian Whitmore

Tags: siloviki,fsb,gru,Vladimir Putin,SVR

This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
October 21, 2011 21:02
Just another reason why many Russians will vote for Putin. This reorganization sounds completely rational to me. For reasons both good and bad, to a large degree, the USSR was more ‘an army with a state’ than the obverse. Putin and company are still in the process of trying to streamline and perhaps they can re-balance their defense and intel priorities.

While I know this blog focuses on things Russian, the need to reorganize and downsize the intelligence structure also applies to the U.S.. In the awful windfall after 9-11, this country has created a huge, bureaucratic intelligence monster that is unhealthy for a democratic state. For a glimpse of this beast, read “Top-Secret America,” by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin. Besides the gross redundancy and waste, there’s a tendency to over-analyze the most trivial information--leading to distortions and poor decisions. The intelligence that these agencies produce is often self-serving and used to perpetuate their existence. Don’t be surprised if a dozen different analysts from American intel agencies read this response and suspect that there is a Trotskyite cell somewhere in the Midwest.
In Response

by: La Russophobe from: USA
October 25, 2011 11:58
RAY: You ought to maybe read a little Russian history before you decide to form opinions about Russia that make you look like an illiterate hayseed from Kansas. The consolidation of secret policy power in Russia caused the apparatus to go amok AND MURDER TENS OF MILLIONS OF RUSSIANS. Unless you are a Nazi, you probably should concede that's a pretty bad thing. Sure, keeping it from happening may be a little inefficient, the type of inefficiency folks like Hitler and Stalin find really annoying, but it saves lives. Think about it. If you can think.
In Response

by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
October 25, 2011 13:42
I wonder sometimes about RFE's editorial policy. I’m all for freedom of speech, but publishing screeching folks like La Russophobe, with their narrow, ad hominem attacks, tend to confuse any sort of meaningful dialogue and weakens RFE’s objective reputation. Maybe some quality control is needed.

Again, the point I was trying to make in Mr. Whitmore’s article dealt with the Kremlin’s move to streamline and consolidate intelligence. I was not making a moral judgment as to how this intelligence would ultimately be used. And while I can’t speak for the US intelligence community, as far as I know, their mission has nothing to do with protecting the lives of Russians or Germans. Their job is to help protect America, and if they are consuming too many resources in this process, whereby the essential economic and political fiber of THIS country is weakened, they need to recalibrate how they do business.
In Response

by: Andrew from: Auckland
October 26, 2011 09:11
Ray, if any quality control is needed it is the weeding out of useful idiots.

Tell me, were you one of those who used to drum on about how misunderstood the USSR was?

Your constant defence of the indefensible, ie Putins Mafiya state, makes me suspicious you are one of those "useful idiots" (the KGB's words not mine) I remember from the 70's and 80's.

Considering that one of Yeltsin's most important reforms was the splitting of the monolithic KGB into the FSB (Internal) and SVR (external) intelligence agencies, there reunion would be a terrible event.

Furthermore, the GRU and KGB were intense rivals, this "downgrading" of the GRU by Putin's cohorts is simply a continuation of the old turf wars of the 1980's.

A hell of a lot of Russian intellectuals are very concerned at the domination fo the government by ex and current members of the FSB/KGB, unfortunately you don't seem to have the honesty (or maybe intelligence) to see how negative a development this is for Russia and all its former imperial possessions.

Also note that, unlike Russia, the US and other western intelligence agencies are firmly under civil control.
In Response

by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
October 26, 2011 12:56
Instead of ‘useful idiot,’ how about ‘useful troll’? Again, I hope that the RFE site does not devolve into the swamp where this type of writer feels most comfortable. They are like the barking heads that fill the conservative airwaves, convinced of their pure, moral rectitude and infallible wisdom, claiming to have a firm handle on contemporary and historical ‘truth.’ As they are so categorical when it comes to Russia, I sometimes wonder if these types have ever lived in Russia or have any Russian friends.

Again, I’m not defending the Kremlin leadership. I merely pointed out that streamlining the intelligence functions of the once militarized state makes sense economically. My larger point dealt with the challenges reining in the intelligence monolith this country has created after 9-11. Your belief that we are safe from any excesses perpetrated by this Top Secret America because they are under civil control strikes me as naïve and historically inaccurate. No government or nation is immune from the risks associated with the abuse of power (particularly among those who traffic in the grey areas of intelligence).
In Response

by: Andrew from: Auckland
November 01, 2011 04:45
Unfortunately Ray, your comments on several other threads show you are lying when you say you do not defend Putin.

In addition, I have quite a few Russian in-laws, and their opinions of politics in Russia strongly influence my own.

And yes I have lived in Russia.

As for no nation being immune to the risks associated with abuse of power, certainly I agree. However such abuse of power is far less likely to occur in a democracy than in a one party state like Russia, where abuse of power by rulers is part of the cultural tradition dating back centuries.

Show me where in US history are there any abuses to compare with those perpetrated by Russian secret police/intelligence services against their own people, especially those "citizens" (second class at best) who wish to leave Russian control.

by: Jack from: US
October 23, 2011 15:12
That was the purpose of 9/11 all along - to give US government an absolute power to jail, torture anyone, and to grab more money from US taxpayers. That was the reason Clintons imported thousands of Muslims into US in 90-ies - and trained them in flight schools. Who was the single biggest beneficiary of 9/11? It was the US government.
In Response

by: KE from: Illinois
October 27, 2011 14:58
I agree with Ray (and this is not a 'Midwest simpleton' thing). There is far too much equilibrating of contemporary Russia with the Soviet Union at its most draconian. Russia is a developing state with all of the problems that come with being the same--leaders who do not trust others to replace them, inconsistent economic performance, etc. While there may be some marginally Machivellian motives behind Putin's reorganization of the secret services, we have to ask: what is the alternative? Would you rather have someone without any experience at the helm of such an enormous and dangerous structure?

And on the topic of freedom of speech: since the time of John Stuart Mill and before, all of the major proponents of freedom of speech have recognized that a precondition must be a quality system of education. Without high-quality education, people will tend to take whatever they hear from self-interested ideologues as fact.

Latest Podcasts

About This Blog

The Power Vertical is a blog written especially for Russia wonks and obsessive Kremlin watchers by Brian Whitmore. It offers Brian's personal take on emerging and developing trends in Russian politics, shining a spotlight on the high-stakes power struggles, machinations, and clashing interests that shape Kremlin policy today. Check out The Power Vertical Facebook page or