Lauri Almann

I'd encourage everyone to read the Danish military intelligence assessment in full, and not rely on excitable social media upsums. Here is the top line: "The Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) assesses that Russia will intensify its hybrid war by carrying out more frequent attacks against the West and NATO, with greater consequences for the targeted countries than in the past. This could include destructive cyber attacks that cripple critical societal functions as well as sabotage attacks that carry a high risk of casualties." In other words, Russia will continue doing what it's already doing (terrorist attacks against hard and soft targets, cyberoperations), only more so. This is an uncontroversial assessment across Western intelligence services, so far as I've been able to determine. DDIS continues: "At the same time, there is a low but growing risk that Russia will launch a limited military attack against one or several NATO countries bordering Russia....Such a limited military attack could take the form of isolated strikes with long‑range weapons on infrastructure that is vital to the support to Ukraine. In this situation, Russia might then claim that the weapons only struck NATO territory because they were jammed by Ukraine. It could also be a so-called false flag operation, where Russia uses Ukrainian‑made drones to attack a NATO country." The scenario envisaged here (a low but growing risk) is a plausibly deniable conventional attack by Russia. The objective would be twofold. First, to sow panic and confusion in the targeted country or countries, and encourage skepticism of the official government version of what just happened. "Maybe it was the Ukrainians." "Maybe it was an accident." "Maybe no attack took place and the deep state is trying to foment World War III." Thirty seconds on this hellsite should be enough to convince you that counterfactual narratives would be easy enough to amplify, especially in countries with elections forthcoming. A "limited military attack" psychologically would just be a heightened form of "hybrid" war because it's designed to overwhelm and demoralize the population and make its think that supporting Ukraine just isn't worth it since those not at war are now liable to become collateral damage. The second objective of such an attack would be to gauge NATO's response to it -- and this is key bit, because, as DDIS also states: "Russia will likely carry out military attacks only if it assesses that such attacks will not result in a war by triggering a collective NATO military response. However, Russia is likely uncertain about what could trigger such a war. Consequently, there is a risk that Russia assesses that the NATO countries will not respond collectively, especially if Russia assesses that the United States cannot or will not support the European NATO countries in a potential war against Russia." (Italics added.) You wouldn't be wrong to detect a hint of political messaging here. (All intel services deny they do any such thing but they all do.) This is Denmark, a country that just stared down a possible U.S. invasion and annexation of Greenland, which would have meant the disintegration of NATO. Trump has spent his entire second term (and much of his first term) doubting the Inviolability of Article V. His Pentagon has given NATO allies questionnaires to fill out to prove their worthiness as allies, while it undergoes a force posture review with ominous media leaks about what Bridge Colby and his minion might do (25,000 U.S. troops withdrawn, a scuppered U.S. base in Poland, etc.) Now comes a frenzy of intelligence reporting across Europe about a possible Russian attack on NATO, all kickstarted by a CIA briefing delivered to the Poles, Scandinavians and Balts months ago with a warning that they're probably on their own if and when such an attack happens. Never let a good crisis go to waste... Russia isn't sure what would trigger a war with NATO, so how might NATO make it sure? A "limited military attack" can be deterred if Washington telegraphs its intent to enforce Article V in word and deed by stating clearly and repeatedly what would constitute a casus belli in 2026 and, of course, by keeping U.S. troops in Europe.

Questions I would ask at this stage: 1. Where is Rubio? Where is State? Rubio said the other day Putin's position is unchanged and suggested any prospect for peace was remote, an assessment echoed by Richard Moore. Rubio is Acting NSA, and so his lack of input here is telling. Is he purposefully letting Witkoff fly this plane into a mountain again, as he did in Alaska, or is he too busy with Venezuela to care? 2. Yermak's cozying up to Witkoff is quite revealing, as is the fact that Witkoff canceled his Turkey trip -- evidently because he was not acquainted with the full scale and scope of the Ukrainian corruption scandal now threatening to end Yermak's overlong political career. (There's a shocker: Witkoff was uninformed.) Yermak using Dim Philby to save his own hide by negotiating terms that aren't exactly transparent to all in Kyiv would be an ignominious sideshow to this whole circus, but wholly in keeping with Yermak's style. 3. Trump today said he is "disappointed" in Putin and vented about the difficulty of ending the war. This is an odd thing to say when you're an emotional toddler without a verbal filter and you have just handed the keys to the kingdom to Putin, according to anonymous sources quoted in the U.S. media. Does Trump even know what's in this 28-point plan? Does he know there is a 28-point plan? Does he care? 4. The administration has expended a great deal of energy of late telling the Europeans what to do: arm, pay up, impose 100% tariffs on India and China for importing Russian oil, further eliminate European dependency on Russian oil, do more sanctions on the shadow fleet, etc, etc. State just approved $105m in Patriot sustainment to Ukraine and $500m via PURL to the Nordics and Balts. Yesterday, Grynkewich allowed ATACMS to be fired into Russia and for the first time Kyiv acknowledged that development. The UK just resupplied Ukraine with more Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which it won't have done without Washington's approval. (The Kremlin now evidently insists on eliminating all long-range missiles from Ukraine's arsenal.) And yet... it's "Fuck the Europeans, we're going it alone with Moscow." Smiley is suspicious, Percy. This is something the U.S. simply cannot do even if it wanted to because there are limits to what an autocratic president can achieve (or perpetrate) unilaterally. I've commented before on Congressional approval for lifting CAATSA-certified sanctions on Russia, and how concomitant without EU sanctions relief the Russian economy does not rebound. Moreover, Republicans have rebuffed Trump on Epstein and Brazil and they're rightly worried how he's leading them into an electoral slaughterhouse in the midterms. Ukraine is not Gaza, and Russia is not Israel, where the U.S. had/has enormous leverage in the form of military aid and diplomatic cover. There is nothing concrete in any of the reporting on what Ukraine or Europe or indeed the U.S. might get out of this scheme, apart from mushy rhetoric on "security guarantees." NATO diplomatic and military planes must leave Ukraine? ZSU must reduce itself by 250%? All Donbas goes to Russia and Ukraine must legally certify the land grab, plus Crimea? This is parodically maximalist, invites more war in the immediate future, and has absolutely no chance of being agreed to in Kyiv or Brussels. Or Warsaw, which is preparing for the next war and will bear the brunt of this sell-out on its periphery, and which just suffered a Russian intelligence attack on its rail system. 5. Using the U.S. press corps to launder a FUBAR "framework" as some signed, sealed and delivered policy proposal when it may only be the brainchild of one braindead American diplomat and one desperate Russian sovereign wealth fund CEO would be very on brand for the Kremlin. And it would be very on-brand for the U.S. press corp to work itself into a lather over this: see the copy filed on the Budapest summit that wasn't. Already there are indications of comms manipulation. Dmitriev, for instance, claimed in Axios to have hung out with Witkoff for three days in Miami last month. Uh, no he didn't. This is easily checked in the open source and shown to be an exaggeration. What else might Dmitriev be exaggerating? And is it perhaps worth inquiring why a man described as a forgettable "propagandist" by the U.S. Treasury Secretary only a few weeks ago is now very chatty to Western journalists that peace is upon us and there's not a damned thing Ukraine can do about it?