LONDON — As tensions mounted nearly three years ago with Russia’s impending invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies took the unusual step of revealing intelligence to unveil Moscow’s intentions.
Insights from U.S. intelligence agencies were shared with NATO and various Western partners to demonstrate that Russia was on the verge of launching its most significant military operation in Europe since World War II.
The objective was to rally international support for Ukraine. In response to the warnings, certain nations began supplying weapons to Ukraine, allowing it to relocate some military assets out of the reach of potential Russian attacks.
With the anticipated leadership of Donald Trump, officials are now preparing for a potentially transformed security environment.
Trump’s critiques of America’s allies and his disdain for intelligence agencies have raised alarm. He has been accused of not adhering to secrecy protocols and holding onto classified documents.
Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard for the position of director of national intelligence has drawn attention due to her previous remarks echoing Russian rhetoric, while his pick for the FBI, Kash Patel, has indicated intentions that may restrict intelligence sharing with allied nations.
Both individuals are expected to face rigorous scrutiny during their upcoming confirmation hearings.
Conversations with 18 current and former senior officials from both Europe and the U.S. who were involved in NATO, defense, diplomacy, or intelligence reveal significant concerns about Trump’s past interactions with intelligence entities and whether they would be capable of sharing vital information amid rising threats and the increasing collaboration among U.S. adversaries.
The foundation of strong intelligence relations rests on trust, a point emphasized by Lord Peter Ricketts, a former U.K. national security adviser.
He highlighted the uncertainties that arise if that trust were absent, even as the U.S. routinely shares critical intelligence regarding terror threats and military movements with its closest partners, such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Britain.
Encouragingly, the U.S. played a crucial role in foiling a Russian assassination attempt on a German arms manufacturer and provided actionable intelligence that prevented a concert attack in Austria.
Ricketts remains hopeful that the intelligence alliance between the U.S. and the U.K. is resilient enough to endure political fluctuations.
However, skepticism lingers regarding U.S. intelligence capabilities following the misleading information that justifying the 2003 Iraq invasion, even though the partnership with other security entities allowed for effective warnings about Russian aggression.
European leaders are striving to convince the Trump administration that threats facing Europe are equally pertinent to U.S. interests.
Mike McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, emphasizes the direct link between intelligence sharing and national security.
He pointed out that the U.S. has become increasingly vigilant about rising terror threats, positing that America’s superior intelligence capabilities, paired with collaborative allies, serve as a significant advantage which could be lost without trust.
Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre noted that the Trump administration appears to be open to listening, which is a positive development.
Despite previous remarks from Trump that criticized NATO allies for inadequate defense spending, some believe he ultimately did not act on these threats.
As NATO countries have increased their defense budgets, owed in part to Trump’s insistence, Sweden and Finland have also joined the alliance following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
However, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson warns that there is a risk of complacency regarding American support and European defense initiatives.
He underscores the uncertainties surrounding the U.S. commitment, stating, “the jury is very much out.”
Concerns are mounting regarding Trump’s intel picks, particularly Gabbard, whose previous associations and statements advocating Russian perspectives surrounding its invasion of Ukraine alarm many lawmakers and intelligence officials.
If confirmed, Gabbard would hold significant authority concerning intelligence declassification and sharing protocols with allied nations.
Meanwhile, some believe that Trump’s nominees may not fully grasp the situation yet but could adapt once provided comprehensive information.
Despite concerns, the fundamental operations within America’s intelligence agencies may not significantly shift under a Trump administration, given existing safeguards that allow for intelligence sharing without compromising sources.
Nevertheless, leadership changes could lead to critical policy shifts or departures that could be risky in the face of adversaries like Russia.
The objective of European leaders remains clear: ensure a focused response to Russia’s provocations.
Further unsettling intelligence personnel are Patel’s critiques of existing surveillance programs, which have historically enabled the U.S. to maintain vigilance over global threats.
Notably, U.S. intelligence shared vital information with Russia in a prior emergency, highlighting the role of these programs in public safety.
As calls grow in Europe for an independent intelligence agency, former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö acknowledges that the continent must be ready to fill any gaps left by a potentially retreating U.S.
Niinistö’s previous interactions with Trump provide insight into the complexities of U.S.-Europe relations, emphasizing the mutual necessity for cooperation.
He remarked on their candid discussions, reiterating the interdependence of their security interests.
