Putin doesn’t aim to
recreate the KGB
Henry Plater-Zyberk is a Senior Lecturer at the Conflict Studies
Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. He has just published report named “Beslan - Lessons Learned?”. He comments
Agentura changes in system of terrorism prevention in North Caucasus:
- You wrote in your report: The involvement of
local politicians in what should have been a security operation was a mistake,
although considering the regional sensitivities it was a situation Moscow was probably not
unhappy to accept. But you know Putin’s decision that commanders of new formed
GrOU (operational management groups) from MVD are under control of local
governors - local politicians. Can you explain this decision? What is purpose
of this reform?
- I would like to start
from an admission that analysing events in a foreign, distant country on the
basis of printed and electronic media and even the best library in the UK is in itself an
exercise in imperfection. What you have read is therefore one man’s imperfect
analysis, views and opinions. That is stressed on the inside of the back cover
of all our papers.
Coming back to your question:
-
no regional
political leader, anywhere in the world, is qualified to run an anti-terrorist
operation unless he/she has quite recently been in charge of a professional
team conducting similar operations. Russia is no exception. Having
combat experience is not enough. Once the experts from Moscow have arrived - my
understanding is that they were in Beslan almost immediately - all regional
politicians should have been at the disposal of the professionals. I am maybe
wrong but it seems to me that it was not the case and that they were “equal
partners”.
-
The outrage
in Beslan was to some degree a failure of the special services, law enforcement
agencies AND local authorities and local law enforcement bodies before the
attack started. It seems to me, just to give you
one example, that the local authorities could have done more to clean up
the area around the school and to set up a more distant first security
parameter. I am not suggesting that Moscow was happy with what
happened. What I wanted to convey was that in this practically impossible
situation - it looks like Basayev “volunteered” his team for the murder and
suicide mission - Moscow could say to all
regional bosses in Russia: “This is what is going
to happen again if you don’t get your act in order”.
-
I think
that the creation of GrOU confirms that theory.
Local politicians will now be responsible for local security victories but also
failures. Local people will not be able to blame Moscow for everything.
- Your
opinion, why Putin decided to make MVD, not FSB responsible for antiterrorist
activity in North
Caucasus?
- I find this decision logical, IF the
MVD gets its act in order. This should be, in theory at least, a police
operation with important input from other relevant organizations. Had Putin
given this responsibility to the FSB, he would have to reform it again,
boosting its fighting capabilities. I don’t think there is any need for that.
That also would be a perfect excuse for his critics to accuse him of wanting to
recreate the NKVD, KGB and so on. It
is easy to sit in a warm office and pontificate about what Putin should and
shouldn’t do - I know all about it, I do it every day - but he had to take
several difficult decisions and none of them would be popular. I think this
decision was correct but I don’t envy Minister Nurgaliyev. At the moment, he
has probably the toughest job in Russia. However, I am not sure that the
GrOU would be in charge if there was, God forbid, another large terrorist
attack.
- In case of new hostage crisis
commander of GrOU will have to be chief of operational staff. What do you think, is it correct decision? In case of
hostage crisis in UK who will be chief of operational
staff - in London, in regions?
- I think I covered the first part of
your question at the end of my previous answer. In the UK, during the Iranian embassy siege
at the beginning of the 1980s Mrs Thacher was the ultimate decisionmaker
concerning the issues of what should be done but not how it should be done. She
decided what should be done after consulting all the professionals. The
operational decisions were taken only by professionals and she
never interfered with their work. I think that this would
still be the case with Toni Blair. I cannot imagine local politicians being
allowed anywhere near the decisionmaking circle, unless one of them had a
specific knowledge or skill required for a specific part of the operation.
Local politicians would not be involved in real operational decisions. A lot
depends on the scale of the terrorist attack and who is involved. Once you
realize that foreign nationals (I don’t mean “natsyonalnost” but
“grazhdanstvo”) are involved, either as the victims or perpetrators the problem
becomes very big and so is the number of people involved.
- You wrote FSB will concentrate mainly on collection and analysis of
information. Do you know that just after Beslan in OGV (objedinennaya
gruppirovka voysk) was created joint intelligence service (objedinennaya
razvedyvatelnaya slujba) from FSB, MVD and GRU. Chief of this new service - deputy chief of OGV. It doesn’t
look like FSB remain main structure for collection of information in North Caucasus. What do you think
about it?
- You are absolutely right but it
doesn’t contradict my point. I think that on the tactical level that will be the case. If the MVD is in charge
of the antiterrorist operations in the regions the MVD will have to have the
necessary information to do the job. To my
knowledge the MVD has very limitted electronic interception capabilities, if any, and none when it comes to space imagery. That is where
the FSB and the GRU come in. The most difficult
part will be the distribution of humint information, which for
understandable reasons each of the organizations involved could be
reluctant to share, especially if it suspects that one of the partners leaks.
- To my impression, Putin choose regions, not centre for main role in
counterterrorism operation, and after all - for responsibility. Why, what do
you think?
- I entirely agree although I am
not sure whether we should speak about “main role”. I would feel better with
“increasingly important role”, although as a non Russian, sitting very far away
from Moscow, it would be presumptuous
of me to pretend that I really know the answer.
- Question, what I hear
every day from Putin supporters if I mention Yandarbiev’s case - why we can’t
do the same thing, that Israel and USA can do? What is your response?
- My understanding is that your
government officially rejected the accusation and the local authorities based
their accusation on strong but circumstantial evidence, imperfect by
definition. I am not qualified to comment on the legal aspect of the case.
As to the second part of the question…. I don’t know.
On one hand, if one would absolutely guarantee that such an action would, for
example, stop the 9/11 attack very few
decisonmakers would hesitate. But then there is a question “What then?” How
many future terrorists may such an attack create ?
We in the EU approach these things much too ideologically. If we had something
like 9/11 or Beslan we would look at certain things more realistically.
Links:
| 
