Day: October 30, 2023
Categories
Ernest Boyce
▼ Primary Sources ▼
Ernest Boyce worked in the Russian mining industry but was recruited by British intelligence and was employed by MI6 during the First World War. In 1918 he was sent to Russia to join up with a small group of agents working under Robert Bruce Lockhart at the British Embassy in Petrograd. The head of MI6, Mansfield Smith-Cumming, wanted Boyce to be a “link man in Moscow, someone who could simultaneously be in contact with both John Scale (based in Stockholm) and the agents working undercover inside the country.” Boyce was described as “a silver-haired lieutenant with considerable experience in military sabotage”. The undercover agents included Francis Cromie, George Alexander Hill, Oswald Rayner, Stephen Alley and Cudbert Thornhill.
Sidney Reilly arrived in Russia in May 1918. As Robin Bruce Lockhart, the author of Reilly: Ace of Spies (1992), points out: “Reilly was eager to reach Moscow as soon as possible and only stayed long enough in Petrograd to make contact with Commander Ernest Boyce, the new head of the British SIS in Russia since the departure of Major Alley. Boyce was mainly concerned with intelligence operations against Germany and Reilly’s was an entirely independent assignment. Reilly made arrangements to use Boyce’s cipher staff in the British Consulate-General in Moscow.”
Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of Cheka, decided to try and infiltrate this intelligence unit. Jan Buikis, a Soviet agent, made contact with Francis Cromie and requested a meeting with Robert Bruce Lockhart. On 14th August, 1918, Buikis and Colonel Eduard Berzin, met Lockhart. Berzin was the commander of a Lettish battalion in the Kremlin guard and told Lockhart that there was serious disaffection among the Lettish troops and asked for money to finance an anti-Bolshevik coup. Sidney Reilly was brought into the conspiracy and Berzin was given 1,200,000 rubles. This money was handed over to the Bolsheviks.
On 17th August, 1918, Moisei Uritsky, the Commissar for Internal Affairs in the Northern Region, was assassinated by Leonid Kannegisser, a young military cadet. Anatoly Lunacharsky commented: “They killed him. They struck us a truly well-aimed blow. They picked out one of the most gifted and powerful of their enemies, one of the most gifted and powerful champions of the working class.” The Soviet press published allegations that Uritsky had been killed because he was unravelling “the threads of an English conspiracy in Petrograd”.
Two weeks later Dora Kaplan attempted to assassinate Lenin. It was claimed that this was part of the British conspiracy to overthrow the Bolshevik government and orders were issued by Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of Cheka, to round up the agents based in British Embassy in Petrograd. On 31st August, 1918, Cromie was killed resisting arrest. According to Robin Bruce Lockhart: “The gallant Cromie had resisted to the last; with a Browning in each hand he had killed a commissar and wounded several Cheka thugs, before falling himself riddled with Red bullets. Kicked and trampled on, his body was thrown out of the second floor window.”
Ernest Boyce and Robert Bruce Lockhart were both arrested but Sidney Reilly had a lucky escape. He arranged to meet Cromie that morning. He arrived at the British Embassy soon after Cromie had been killed: “The Embassy door had been battered off its hinges. The Embassy flag had been torn down. The Embassy had been carried by storm.” Reilly now went into hiding and eventually managed to get back to London. Boyce initially was told he was going to be shot but was surprisingly released on 1st September.
Boyce worked as the Passport Control Officer in Tallinn before being appointed as MI6 station chief in Helsinki. The Bolshevik government decided to trick Sidney Reilly and Boris Savinkov into going back to the Soviet Union. As Christopher Andrew, the author of Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community (1985) has pointed out: “Since 1922 the GPU had been plotting the downfall of both Reilly and Savinkov by operating a bogus anti-Bolshevik Front, the Monarchist Union of Central Russia (MUCR), better known as the Trust, designed to ensnare the remaining plotters against Bolshevik rule.”
Boyce wrote to Sidney Reilly asking him to meet the leaders of Monarchist Union of Central Russia in Moscow. In March 1925, Reilly replied: “Much as I am concerned about my own personal affairs which, as you know, are in a hellish state. I am, at any moment, if I see the right people and prospects of real action, prepared to chuck everything else and devote myself entirely to the Syndicate’s interests. I was fifty-one yesterday and I want to do something worthwhile, while I can.”
After a number of delays caused mainly by Reilly’s debt-ridden business dealings, he met Ernest Boyce in Paris before crossing the Finnish border on 25th September 1925. At a house outside Moscow two days later he had a meeting with the leaders of MUCR, where he was arrested by the secret police. Reilly was told he would be executed because of his attempts to overthrow the Bolshevik government in 1918.
According to the Soviet account of his interrogation, on 13th October 1925, Reilly wrote to Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of Cheka, saying he was ready to cooperate and give full information on the British and American Intelligence Services. Sidney Reilly’s appeal failed and he was executed on 5th November 1925.
According to Keith Jeffery, the author of MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service (2010), Boyce had sent Reilly into Russia without clearing the scheme with his superiors in London. “Boyce had to take some of the blame for the tragedy. Back in London, as recalled by Harry Carr, his assistant in Helsinki” he was “carpeted by the Chief for the role he had played in this unfortunate affair.”
In 1938 Alexander Orlov, a senior figure in Cheka, fled to France. He later moved to the United States. FBI agent Edward P. Gazur, who interviewed Orlov, claims that Boyce was a double agent and was paid for information about British agents and was responsible for betraying Sidney Reilly. This was published for the first time in Gazur’s book, Alexander Orlov: The FBI’s KGB General (2001). Nigel West has argued that “the reason why this hasn’t come out until now is that Orlov, who was not debriefed by British intelligence, never told anybody but Edward Gazur.”
▲ Main Article ▲
Sidney Reilly was still in Petrograd when events turned sour. His plan to overthrow the Bolshevik Government had spun wildly out of control and he knew he would need his wits about him if he was to keep one step ahead of the Cheka.
He first realised that something was seriously awry when Captain Cromie, naval attaché at the British Embassy, failed to turn up to a secret rendezvous on the afternoon of 31 August. “Not like Cromie to be unpunctual,” observed Reilly.
After waiting for another fifteen minutes at the pre-agreed location, he decided to make his way towards the embassy. It was “a dangerous move” – for he risked being searched – “but I had brought it off successfully before.”
He turned into Vlademirovsky Prospect, only to be confronted by a group of men and women running towards him in panic. “They dived into doorways, into side-streets everywhere.”
Reilly was perplexed as to what was happening. A military car sped past, filled with Red Army soldiers. It was heading in the opposite direction to the crowd, racing towards the embassy. Reilly quickened his pace as he reached the end of Vlademirovsky Prospect. As he turned the corner, he immediately realised that something was seriously wrong.
“The Embassy door had been battered off its hinges. The Embassy flag had been torn down. The Embassy had been carried by storm.”
On the pavement outside there were several bloodstained corpses. Reilly glanced at them and noticed that they were not English. They were Russians, Bolsheviks, who he presumed to have been killed while storming the building.
It was to be some hours before Reilly discovered the grim details of what had taken place. Others had been rather closer to the action. Nathalie Bucknell, wife of one of the few remaining staff at the embassy, was in the passport office on the ground floor when she heard the crack of gunshots coming from upstairs. It was exactly 4.50 p.m. She poked her head into the entrance hall, only to hear more intense shooting and “terrible screams”. She was as frightened as she was puzzled; she had not heard any soldiers entering the building.
The embassy porter crept into the hall and peered nervously up the stairwell. He motioned for her to take cover. She did so just in time. As she crouched in the small lobby adjoining the hall, a group of men could be heard careering down the grandiose staircase. At its head was Captain Cromie, wildly firing his revolver. Behind him, and in hot pursuit, were Red Guards. They too were firing their guns.
Nathalie sank to her knees in fear. There was a constant crackle of gunfire as the shoot-out intensified and bullets began to ricochet off the marble walls and columns. She peeked through the keyhole just as one of the bullets hit its target. “Captain Cromie fell backwards on the last step.”
He was seriously wounded and clearly in need of urgent medical attention.
The Red Guards dashed into the street, seemingly confused by the lack of other gunmen. As they did so, a second group of soldiers came clattering down the stairs, equally dazed by the shoot-out. One of them paused for a moment to kick Cromie’s half-conscious body….
Nathalie could hear the sound of yet more soldiers on the first floor of the building; they were bawling to the embassy staff who had hid themselves away in fear of their lives. “Come out of the room, come out of the room, or we will open machine-gun fire on you.”
Nathalie was joined by her friend Miss Blumberg, who had taken refuge in one of the downstairs rooms. Together, the two women gingerly stepped into the hall in order to see what they could do for Captain Cromie. He was smeared with blood. “Bending over him, we saw his eyelids and lips move very faintly.”
As Miss Blumberg attempted to speak to him, a group of Red Guards reappeared and started shouting insults.
Pointing their revolvers at her, they called very rudely: “Come upstairs immediately or we will fire at you.”
The two women did not dare to argue; they were led up to the first floor with revolvers poking into their bodies. Nathalie saw graphic evidence of the shoot-out that had taken place. On the floor, lying in a pool of rapidly congealing blood, was the corpse of a Red Guard.
The two ladies were jostled into the Chancery room where Ernest Boyce, head of Mansfield Cumming’s operations inside Russia, was being held at gunpoint. “At that moment, the Red Commissary entered and told everyone that they must keep quiet with their hands up and that the Consulate was taken by the Red Guards.”
Miss Blumberg bravely asked if she could give the dying Cromie a glass of water. Her request was brusquely denied by the soldiers. The chaplain was treated with equal contempt when he asked to attend to the semi-conscious English captain.
The rest of the British staff were now brought into the Chancery and told that they were being held as prisoners. Most were still reeling from what had taken place. They knew of the assassination of Uritsky and of the attempt on Lenin’s life, but only Ernest Boyce was aware of Reilly’s planned coup and even he did not know that it had been exposed by the Cheka.
“The room was now full of soldiers and sailors who were most brutal in their behaviour,” wrote Nathalie. The porter was led through each room with a revolver pressed to his head. The guards said they would shoot him if he did not unlock every door and cupboard.
The hostages were held for several hours while the embassy was stripped of everything of value, including all its archives and secret documents. The staff were then marched down the stairs, passing the now-dead Captain Cromie, and taken to a nearby building. For the next fifteen hours, they were held prisoner and interrogated, one by one.
Nathalie overheard a soldier saying that five of them, including Boyce, were going to be shot. But the executions were inexplicably annuled before they could be carried out. At 11 a.m. on 1 September, all of the prisoners were informed that they were free to go. Bewildered as to why they were being released, but not daring to ask any questions, they gratefully made their way into the street.
Page 2
We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page..
Continue with Recommended Cookies
But who was Sidney Reilly and what were the forces that drove him? To lovers, friends and enemies alike, Reilly remained a mystery. In spite of the many books that have been written about him, often themselves making contrary claims, major questions still remain unanswered about his true identity, place of birth and the precise facts surrounding his disappearance and death. During his life Reilly laid an almost impenetrable fog of mystery and deception around his origins as he adopted and shed one identity after another. Those who entered this ruthlessly compartmentalised life knew only what Reilly himself had told them.
Did it become a tradition of the Russian Intelligence, after the Sidney Reilly – Operation Trust Affair, to send the open, sarcastic “Greeting Cards” to their opponents, like them or Reilly himself sent it, at their connivance, on September 27, 1925 from Moscow to Berlin, to his MI6 Commander Ernest Boyce, informing him that he is allright and in Moscow. The exact facts around this postcard are still quite murky. I was not able to find the origins of this postcard, yet. It looks real, but it could be written by either CheKa, imitating his handwriting, or by Reilly himself. He was arrested very shortly after he mailed this postcard. Note the description of the front of the postcard: Lenin at the founding ceremony of the monument to Karl Marx. The organizing of the shooting at Lenin in 1918 was the main charge against Reilly, and the postcard reminded his MI6 boss about it.
Was the shooting by Robert R. Card one of those “Greeting Cards”?
Was it sent by Putin himself?
Selected Articles – The News And Times
Categories
To trap a spy
It was a warm, humid afternoon, typical of Moscow in August, and children were playing in the street below. Apartment No 66 was on the top floor and the television crew were using the small lift to shuttle their equipment up in relays. Boris Gudz sat patiently in the corner of the study as cameramen and sound technicians set up around him. Although clearly a man of advancing years, there was little in his outward appearance to betray the fact that two weeks previously he had celebrated his 100th birthday. On his blazer lapel, appropriately, hung the Order of Artuzov. Artur Artuzov was the Ogpu mastermind credited with conceiving Operation Trust, the subject of the afternoon’s interview for Russian television.
A counter-intelligence coup of epic proportions, the 1925 Trust operation succeeded in luring back to Russia the man Ogpu – the Soviet military intelligence service – ranked as one of its greatest and most formidable enemies, the British “master spy” Sidney Reilly.
When the equipment was finally ready and the interview began, Gudz explained that he had been born in the Kherson district, the same district as the Russian-born Reilly. After his father was arrested for revolutionary activity, he joined Lenin’s Bolshevik party and eventually took part in the 1917 revolution and the civil war that followed. Artuzov, head of Ogpu’s counter-intelligence section, was a family friend and had offered Gudz a job as liaison officer to his subordinate, Vladimir Styrne. Gudz’s initial role in the Trust deception was as a courier delivering messages and money to Eduard Opperput, one of the front-line agents engaged in apprehending Reilly.
Like many others in the west, Reilly was convinced that the Trust was an anti-Bolshevik group and believed Opperput to be one of its representatives. It was at Opperput’s “safe-house” apartment on September 26 1925 that Reilly wrote a postcard to the MI6 station chief Ernest Boyce. Gudz recalled that after leaving the building and posting the card, Reilly got into a car he thought was taking him to the railway station. Instead, handcuffs were snapped on his wrists and the car sped off to the notorious Lubyanka headquarters of Ogpu.
Reilly’s incarceration in cell 73 was kept a closely guarded secret, even from other Ogpu personnel. According to Gudz, “The cell was more like a room of a good hotel: there was a sofa, an armchair and a table in it.” Concern that Reilly might attempt suicide is evident from a conversation Gudz recalled with the jailer, who told him that day and night observation was being kept on Prisoner 73, “so that he won’t lay hands on himself”.
The interrogation, led by Styrne, began the day after Reilly’s arrest. From the very start, Styrne’s approach was one of respect for someone he considered a worthy adversary. Although it was made clear to Reilly that he was still under sentence of death for his part in the attempted coup against Lenin in 1918, Gudz was keen to emphasise that at no point during interrogation was torture used – “no physical methods were applied to him. I can guarantee that”.
Reilly made several statements to Styrne about his background, but would not be drawn on any of the matters Ogpu most wanted to know about, principally MI6 operational details. Although “physical methods” of torture were not employed, there is strong evidence in the Ogpu’s records to suggest that psychological torture certainly was.
While in cell 73, Reilly kept a diary of sorts, making tiny, handwritten notes on cigarette papers. These he hid in his clothing, his bed and in cracks in the plaster walls. On October 30 1925 he recorded that Styrne had told him that, “unless I agree to co-operate [my] execution will take place immediately”. On his refusal, Styrne called in the executioner. Reilly was handcuffed and taken out to be shot, or so he thought. After “an endless wait” in the courtyard, he was brought back in and told that a stay of execution had been granted for a further 20 hours.
According to Ogpu observation reports, Reilly spent that night alternately crying and praying before a small picture of his wife Pepita. It seemed that the classic mock execution technique had finally shaken his resolve. Despite his agreement to provide, “full evidence and information… relating to the organisation and personnel of the British intelligence service,” subsequent interrogation reports indicate that the details he gave Styrne were either of a low-grade nature (much of which they already knew) or were completely bogus. On being asked, for example, who the new head of MI6 was, he gave a fictitious name – Rear Admiral Gaygout – instead of naming Rear Admiral Sinclair.
According to Gudz, Reilly was regularly taken from the Lubyanka after dark and driven to the Sokolniki district for walks in the woods. As a “secret” prisoner, great care had to be taken to conceal his movements: Reilly was always dressed in an Ogpu uniform for the trips.
By November 4 it was decided that Reilly had no more to tell. Stalin, who Gudz says was kept fully informed throughout, believed that the longer Reilly remained alive the greater the chance that word of his incarceration would leak out. Once this happened, diplomatic scandals and intrigues would surely follow. According to Gudz, Stalin, “anticipated this situation and ordered his execution”. Although the decision to carry out the execution was an irreversible one made at the highest level, it would seem that the Ogpu officers on the ground did, in fact, exercise a degree of discretion in how it was done, deciding to shoot Reilly unawares on his next walk in Sokolniki on the evening of November 5.
“However paradoxical it may sound,” said Gudz, “it was a humanitarian act. Reilly had been taken on those trips many times before, and this, his last trip, was just another in his eyes.” With Reilly in the car that evening were the driver, Ibrahim Abisalov, Grigory Feduleev and Grigory Syroezhkin. Prior to leaving the Lubyanka, it had been agreed that the driver would stop the car at an appointed spot just beyond the pond on the narrow Bogorodsk road. When Reilly was 30 to 40 paces from the car he was shot in the back by Abisalov.
It should be noted with some historical irony that Artuzov, Styrne and indeed most of those involved in Reilly’s apprehension and death would eventually find themselves in front of Ogpu firing squads, as victims of Stalin’s purges. Gudz and his friend Abisalov were more fortunate. As relatively junior officers they were merely sacked from the organisation and quickly melted into civilian life. Gudz, who soon found himself a job as a bus driver, ultimately survived not only the purges and the second world war, but the demise of the Soviet Union whose birth he had witnessed.
· On His Majesty’s Secret Service – Sidney Reilly, Codename ST1 by Andrew Cook is published by Tempus, £14.99
Considered by many the greatest spy in history. His heroic missions, quick thinking and love for the ladies made him the prototype for spies.
Born Sigmund Georgievich Rosenblum in Odessa, Russia in 1874, the son of a rich Jewish landowner. Was educated briefly through grade school but was largely self-taught from thereon. Over the years, became proficient as a linguist, learning to speak at least seven languages fluently.
Left Russia at the age of 19, stowing away on a ship and traveling to Brazil. Worked in Brazil in various occupations, including as a dishwasher, a cook and a bouncer.
Served as part of an expedition through the jungle in Brazil, working as a cook for a group of British explorers. The group was attacked by cannibals and Reilly bravely grabbed a revolver and shot several of the attackers dead, driving off the rest. The grateful explorers invited Reilly to return with them to England. Impressed with his language skills, they steered him in the direction of the intelligence community.
Received training in espionage and was dispatched by the British back to Russia to gather information. Returning successfully, Reilly was given a permanent position with the British Naval Intelligence Department (NID).
Was very popular with the ladies. carrying on several affairs. Had a brief affair with noted author Ethel Voynick. Later began an affair with Margaret Callahan, the young wife of Reverend Hugh Thomas. Reilly had met Reverend THomas advising him on cures for his kidney information. When Thomas was found dead in his room at the Newhaven Harbour Station hotel. Apparently, a person claiming to be a doctor named T.W.Andrew, who bore a strong resemblance to Reilly, certified the death as a result of generic influenza and ordered no inquest be held. Despite the fact that there was no record of a doctor by that name in Great Britain at the time, Thomas’ wife Margaret inherited about £800,000. Reilly subsequently married her on August 22, 1898. At this time, he discarded the name Sigmund Rosenblum and became known as Sidney George Reilly. Was granted British citizenship soon thereafter.
Was sent by NID to Holland during the Boer War where he was to gather information on the armaments shipments being sent to South Africa. Used his innate ability for disguise to assume identities and assumed the role of a Russian arms purchaser. Under this guise, he put himself in a position to inspect the arms development at certain Dutch facilities. Once again, he returned to Britain with valuable information, impressing his superiors. He enjoyed similar success on a number of other assignments and became known within NID as one of the top agent within the agency.
Had a natural flair for his assignments, cool-headed, creative and brave. A master of disguise, he also possessed remarkable acting skills, allowing him to don almost any persona. He also possessed a confidence and bravery that prompted him to accept even the most dangerous and impossible assignments.
Was allocated large blocks of cash to use to bribe officials and informants. Was also afforded a hefty salary, allowing him to enjoy a life of luxury outside of his dangerous work and enjoyed the company of numerous women. It was said of him that he had as many wives as he had forged passports (which were numerous, indeed). He used his charm as a method for obtaining information from the wives of important officials.
While in the service of England, Reilly’s true loyalty was to himself and his bank account. He would go to any extreme to accomplish the most dangerous mission so far as it would enhance his position, thereby prompting his superiors to call on him again. His willingness to risk life and limb was what made him so attractive as an agent to NID. it should also have alerted the agency to his willingness to to do anything for money, a trait that would make him a prime target to be recruited by a rival intelligence service.
While in the service of England, Reilly’s true loyalty was to himself and his bank account. He would go to any extreme to accomplish the most dangerous mission so far as it would enhance his position, thereby prompting his superiors to call on him again. His willingness to risk life and limb was what made him so attractive as an agent to NID. it should also have alerted the agency to his willingness to to do anything for money, a trait that would make him a prime target to be recruited by a rival intelligence service.
Was sent to Port Arthur, Manchuria, a naval base for the Russian Far Eastern fleet. Accompanied by his wife, he was provided with an enormous bank account, the funds from which he purchased an interest in a small timber company as well as a Danish company (for whom he served as a manager). In reality, these were covers for his real business, spying on the Russian naval assets in Port Arthur. Reilly observed and recorded the positions and schedules of Russian warships as well as assessments of their armaments, crews and capabilities. He even drew sketches of the ships and the port. Reilly sent this information back to England, but was believed by some to have also had financial dealings with Russian and Japanese intelligence officers.
Was brought into the Secret intelligence Service (later known as MI6) in 1909 and served under Captain Mansfield Smith-Cumming. While SIS and NID were pleased with Reilly’s capabilities and results, Smith-Cumming said of Reilly “[H}e is a man of indomitable courage, a genius as an agent, but a sinister man who I could never bring myself wholly to trust.”
Was sent to Essen, Germany in 1909 to monitor the vast growth of the German war machine. He devised a cover as a Baltic shipyard worker named Karl Khan secured a job as a welder in a Krupp armaments plant. His plan was the photograph the plant and its production output, but he realized that the drawing office was heavily guarded during the day. Instead he volunteered for the fire brigade which worked during the night shift. A few nights later, he strangled the head of the night security detail and incapacitated another security officer, thereby gaining access to the drawing room. In true Reilly fashion, rather than bothering with photographing the plans, he simply stole them, hopped a train and then a boat and evaded German agents as he escaped back to England.
With England still interested in Germany’s naval and military capabilities, Reilly was sent to Russia where he pose as an armament distributor. Believing that aerial reconnaissance would provide the best opportunity for seeing and assessing the strength of the German fleet, he used his burgeoning bank account to sponsor air races for Russian aviators. In addition to establishing him as a member of the social elite, it also enabled him cover for flying over areas of the Baltic Sea, photographic German vessels. Through his newfound social connections, Reilly was introduced toa man named Massino, the assistant to the Russian Minister of Marine. Reilly seduced Massino’s wife, Nadine, who confided that a German company, Blohm & Voss, were seeking to win the contracts to rebuild the Russian fleet. Reilly bought a small company (Mendrochovich & Lubersky) and pursuaded Massino to convince Blohm & Voss to name his company as their St. Petersburg agents. After Blohm& Vos was awardrd the contracts to rebuild the Russian fleet, they sent copies of all of their designs to Reilly’s firm, the designs having been based on the German fleet. Before he turned the plans over to the Russian Minister of Marine, he made a full set of photographic copies, which he sent back to England.
Was able to reach an agreement with SIS so that any profits he earned through his “cover” businesses were kept by him. Reilly became very wealthy through his SIS funded endeavors.
Enjoying Russia, he stayed, living a life of luxury and social prominence. He purchased a small palace where he entertained Nadine Massino and a bevy of other beautiful women. Eventually he planted stories in Russian newspapers claiming his wife Margaret had died in a train crash. He then paid Massino a large sum of money to divorce Nadine, whom Reilly eventually married in New York City in 1916.
Was engaged by Russia to purchase arms for its war effort. Reilly purchased arms from the United States and from Japan.
Was assigned a new mission at the behest of British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. With the Russian government in tatters (after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas) Alexander Kerensky had taken control of the government as the new Prime Minister and was struggling to keep Russian in the fight of World War I. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian government and under the revolution’s leader Vladimir Lenin, signed a peace treaty with the Germans in 1918. Reilly, in cooperation with Robert Bruce Lockhart, the British general counsel to Russia, attempted to overthrow the new Russian (Bolshevik) government in order to bring Russia back into the war.
Was assigned to a new mission for England, sent to Germany again, this time to assess German army strength and movements. Speaking German fluently, he actually joined the German army and served on the Western front, while sending detailed assessments of German troop plans back to England via carrier pigeons.
Claimed to have impersonated the Chief of Staff to Rupert of Bavaria, thereby gaining access to planning conferences of the German high command, information of great importance that he passed back to London.
Tried to deal directly with Lenin, turning up at the Kremlin gates, demanding to see the Russian leader (infuriating Lockhart in so doing).
Decided the best way to cause the overthrow of the Russian government was to assassinate Lenin. Began to plot his assassination and bribed two of Lenin’s bodyguards, who agreed to help him. He also began consolidating factions of anti-Bolsheviks to take part in the plot and compiled a list of Russian military leaders to take over after the fall of the Bolshevik government.
Before Reilly could act, Lenin was shot by a woman, Fanya “Dora” Kaplan. Lenin survived and after Kaplan was executed, the Bolsheviks began to search for a plot and tracked down the two guards Reilly had bribed. They cooperated and identified Reilly as well as Lockhart. Reilly eventually escaped on a Dutch freighter. Nonetheless, he was tried in absentia and was convicted of conspiracy against the Bolshevik government and against the life of Vladimir Lenin. He was sentenced to death.
Despite his failure, his flight and his death sentence, Reilly was convinced that he could still Lenin and overthrow the Bolshevik government, begging Smith-Cumming to send him back in. The SIS chief declined. Nonplussed, Reilly endeavored to carry out his own mission.
Formed an alliance with anti-Communist Boris Sakinov, the head of the counter-revolutionary Union for the Defense of the Fatherland and Freedom. Sakinov was able to gain a following of 30,000 anti-Bolshevik troops. Unfortunately anit-Bolshevik forces within Russia were soundly defeated before Sakinov could lead his troops into the country. Despite this, Sakinov was elated to find other pro-pro-Monarchist anti-Bolsheviks in Paris who agreed to fund his counter-revolution. The Monarchist Union of Central Russia (also known as the Trust) sent his to Russia to meet with underground Trust sympathizers.
In truth, the Trust a front group, created by the Bolsheviks under the guidance of Feliks Dzerzhinsky (OGPU). Months later, Reily was introduced to “Trust” members and led him also going to Russia to meet with the Trust’s council leaders. Upon crossing the Finnish border, he was arrested on February 27, 1925 and taken to Lubyanka Prison where he was interrogated.
Was notified that the death sentence against him was to be carried out. Reilly, according to Soviet reports, tried to barter with Dzerzhinsky, promising to pass along British and American intelligence secrets in return for his life. It was to no avail.
Was executed by firing squad on November 5, 1925 outside of Moscow and buried in an unmarked grave.
He learnt a great deal about the operational history of his own department, including its role in the greatest intelligence coup of the First World War – the cracking of the German diplomatic code 0070, which gave Fleming the inspiration for Bond’s own code number 007.4 This background knowledge enabled him to draw on a rich seam of characters, experiences and situations that would prove invaluable in creating the fictional world of James Bond.
One of Fleming’s wartime contacts, for example, was Charles Fraser-Smith, a seemingly obscure official at the Ministry of Supply. In reality, Fraser-Smith provided the intelligence services with a range of fascinating and ingenious gadgets such as compasses hidden inside golf balls and shoelaces that concealed saw blades. He was the inspiration for Fleming’s Major Boothroyd, better known as ‘Q’ in the Bond novels and films.
Having a fascination for gadgets, deception and intrigue, Fleming was particularly attracted to the ‘black propaganda’ work undertaken by the Political Warfare Executive, headed by former diplomat and journalist Robert Bruce Lockhart, with whom he also struck up an acquaintance. In 1918 Lockhart had worked with Sidney Reilly in Russia, where they became embroiled in a plot to overthrow Lenin’s fledgling government. Within five years of his disappearance in Soviet Russia in 1925, the press had turned Reilly into a household name, dubbing him a ‘Master Spy’ and crediting him with a string of fantastic espionage exploits.
Fleming had therefore long been aware of Reilly’s mythical reputation and no doubt listened in awe to the recollections of a man who had not only known Reilly personally but was actually with him during the turmoil and aftermath of the Russian Revolution. Lockhart had himself played a key role in creating the Reilly myth in 1931 by helping Reilly’s wife Pepita publish a book purporting to recount her husband’s adventures. As a journalist at the time, Lockhart also had a hand in the deal that led to the serialisation of Reilly’s ‘Master Spy’ adventures in the London Evening Standard.
Although Reilly was a spark or catalyst for Fleming’s ‘Master Spy’ concept, Bond’s personality was a fictional cocktail, culled from a range of characters, including Fleming’s own. There are certainly threads of Reilly’s hard-edged personality to be found in the Bond who inhabits the pages of Fleming’s books. The literary Bond was visibly a much darker, more calculating and altogether more sinister character than his big screen counterpart, who has tended to dilute Fleming’s original concept over the years.
Like Fleming’s fictional creation, Reilly was multi-lingual with a fascination with the Far East, fond of fine living and a compulsive gambler. He also exercised a Bond-like fascination for women, his many love affairs standing comparison with the amorous adventures of 007. Unlike James Bond, though, Sidney Reilly was by no stretch of the imagination a conventionally handsome man. His appeal lay more in the elusive qualities of charm and charisma. He was, however, equally capable of being cold and menacing. In many ways, the closest modern fictional character to resemble Reilly is Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone in The Godfather, a man of controlled coldness and deadpan calculation. Like Corleone, the equally calculating Reilly had a powerful hold over women – or, at least, a particular kind of woman – which he never failed to exploit.
But who was Sidney Reilly and what were the forces that drove him? To lovers, friends and enemies alike, Reilly remained a mystery. In spite of the many books that have been written about him, often themselves making contrary claims, major questions still remain unanswered about his true identity, place of birth and the precise facts surrounding his disappearance and death. During his life Reilly laid an almost impenetrable fog of mystery and deception around his origins as he adopted and shed one identity after another. Those who entered this ruthlessly compartmentalised life knew only what Reilly himself had told them.
Over a century of falsehood and fantasy, both deliberate and intentional, has obscured the real Sidney Reilly. Reilly’s tendency to be something of a Walter Mitty character, telling tall tales of great espionage feats, has only added to the legend and muddied the water still further. To piece together an accurate picture of his extraordinary life it has been necessary to shed all preconceptions and to return to square one to reveal the man behind the ‘Master Spy’.
Extracted from Ace of Spies by Andrew Cook
Categories
The Mysterious Sidney Reilly
Russian Sidney Reilly spoke seven languages, spied for the British, and inspired Ian Fleming’s famous fictional spy, James Bond.
On the evening of November 5, 1925, Prisoner #73 was taken from his cell in the infamous Lubyanka Prison and driven to a woods in the Sokolniki district outside Moscow. In the car with the prisoner were three members of OGPU, the Soviet military intelligence service, who served as his escort. The car stopped along the Bogorodsk Road, just beyond a small pond, and the prisoner was let out of the car and allowed to take a walk in the woods. This was not an unusual occurrence, as Prisoner #73 had been on such walks many times before. This form of exercise was often granted to him after a long interrogation session by the OGPU and usually took place every few days. Tonight, however, was to be different. The prisoner, having just begun his stroll, was roughly 30 to 40 paces from the car when the driver, OGPU officer Ibrahim Abisalov, drew his pistol and shot him in the back. Prisoner #73 never saw it coming, nor could he have escaped it had he known. Despite any personal feelings the OGPU officers may have had concerning the prisoner, the orders for the execution were not to be questioned, for they came directly from Stalin himself. The end result was that Sidney Reilly, the man once known as the British Secret Intelligence Service’s “ace of spies,” was dead.
Or was he? There have been numerous reported “sightings” of Sidney Reilly alive throughout the 1920s and 1930s, during World War II, and even as late as 1960! Even the sequence of events concerning his murder contains some elements of inconsistency. One version of the story claims Reilly was shot once in the back, and when found to be still alive, his body was rolled over and he was shot again in the chest. Another claims he was shot once in the back by Abisalov, while yet a third states he was shot several times in the back by both Abisalov and Grigory Syroezhkin, another of the OGPU officers who were with him in the car. Even the spelling of Abisalov’s name, by the same person recounting the events, is different. In one version, it is spelled “Abissalov,” using a double “s.”
A Man of Mystery and Intrigue
While these inconsistencies are relatively minor points, they do make for a very interesting end for the man whose passion for intrigue, obfuscation, double-dealing, and outright lying about his past made him famous during his life. One cannot help but think that the lack of irrefutable evidence surrounding even the events of his death would probably bring a smile to the face of Sidney Reilly.
The exact date of his birth and even his true name are in question. Most fairly reliable sources give his birth date as March 24, 1874, and the location as in or somewhere near Odessa, in the Ukraine. Other sources state he was born in 1873. His name has alternately been given as Georgi Rosenblum, Sigmund Rosenblum, Shlomo Rosenblum, Salomon Rosenblum, and even Sigmund Georgjevich Rosenblum. Supposedly, Reilly himself claimed that Rosenblum wasn’t his real name, but that when his father—a Russian Army colonel with connections at the Czar’s court—died, he learned the dreaded family secret that he was the progeny of an affair between his mother and her Jewish doctor, named Rosenblum. Little wonder that with such auspicious beginnings his entire life would be one of uncertainty and confusion concerning his true past.
As a young university student, Reilly purportedly became involved with an early Marxist group called The Friends of Enlightenment and acted as a courier for them. He was arrested by Czarist police and thrown into jail. When he was released, he learned of his mother’s death and the secret about his real father. Apparently embarrassed by his Jewish parentage—like most Russians at this time, he was virulently anti-Semitic—and upset by both his mother’s death and her betrayal, Reilly fled from his family and stowed away on a British ship bound for South America. (There is also the story that he feigned his own death by drowning to make a complete break from his family.) Under the name of Pedro, he pretended to be South American and got a job as a cook for a British mission in Brazil.
During an attack by a local tribe, Pedro is said to have saved the lives of the mission group. One of them, a British agent named Major Fothergill, gave Pedro £1500 out of gratitude. When Fothergill learned who Pedro really was, he arranged both a passport and passage for him to England. A different account of Reilly’s arrival in England says that his knowledge of languages—he was apparently fluent in seven—impressed some British Army intelligence officers visiting Brazil, and they arranged for him to go to England where he was later recruited as a spy for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). Yet a third story has Reilly in Paris, working for the Okhrana, the Imperial Russian Secret Police, spying on Russian radicals. In 1895, Reilly and his case officer appear to have murdered two couriers carrying money for a Russian revolutionary group, and with his share of the money, Reilly went to England.
”Miracle Cures” and Murder
However he got there, Reilly did arrive in England in 1895 and set himself up in London. By 1896, he had started a business as a consulting chemist under the name of Rosenblum & Company. Within nine months he was a fellow of the Chemistry Society and a member of the Institute of Chemistry. It seems that, instead of actually being a chemist, he was manufacturing and distributing patent medicines or “miracle cures” to an unsuspecting public. It was around 1898 that he married his first wife, a widow named Margaret Thomas, who had inherited a small fortune from her late husband, Hugh Thomas. It has been suggested that Reilly and Margaret were involved in an affair, and that Reilly, or both of them, murdered Margaret’s husband so they could marry and inherit Hugh’s money. It is even suggested that Reilly impersonated the local doctor and signed the death certificate, thereby removing suspicion from himself.
Following the marriage, Sigmund Rosenblum changed his name, taking the Irish surname Reilly, which was Margaret’s maiden name, and became Sidney Reilly, also known as Sidney George Reilly. There are several plausible reasons for the name change, but the most revealing is what Reilly himself said, “In Europe, only the British hate the Irish, but everyone hates the Jews.”
Margaret was the first of an unverifiable number of wives and mistresses credited to Reilly. Estimates of Reilly having three or four wives and at least six mistresses are about the average. At least two of Reilly’s marriages were witnessed by members of the SIS, who knew them to be bigamous but said nothing because Reilly was working for them. One of his reputed mistresses was Ethan Lilian Voynich, author of The Gadfly, a novel published in 1897. According to the book Reilly, Ace of Spies by Robin Bruce Lockhart, the son of a British agent named Robert Bruce Lockhart who worked with Reilly, “He [Reilly] was not angry when she later published a novel, much praised by the critics, which was largely inspired by his early life.”
“Trust No Nne.”
Considering the times and the nature of his work, it is not all that surprising that Reilly would have had several wives and mistresses. Nor is it unbelievable that Reilly would have had such an effect on women that he could have so many wives and mistresses. By the accounts of those who knew him well, Reilly’s character left an indelible impression. He was suave, debonair, self-confident, and able to “charm the pants” off both women and men alike. He was overtly generous with his friends and those rare family members with whom he associated. He enjoyed gambling with both his money and his life and often gave his friends bags of gold sovereigns with which to gamble against him. He could also be cold and pragmatic, capable of using any and every means to get what he wanted. On his personal stationary was the motto Mundo Nulla Fides, translated as “Put no faith in the world,” or more simply, “Trust no one.”
Richard B. Spence, the author of Trust No One—The Secret World of Sidney Reilly, described Reilly as “a mercenary of a rather specialized sort … a freelance entrepreneur in the business of information and influence.” Commenting on his character, Reilly described himself as “a practical man.”
The patent medicine business not bringing in the kind of money he wanted, Reilly began to work as an informer for Scotland Yard’s Special Branch, supplementing his income by spying on radicals and revolutionaries among the Russian émigré community. When his name was linked to an Okhrana investigation of a London-based counterfeiting ring producing fake Russian rubles, the head of Special Branch decided Reilly should leave immediately. With a new passport, Reilly and his wife hurriedly left London in June 1899 and headed for the one place no one would think to look for them—Russia.
The timeline of his life and activities becomes rather fragmented over the next several years, but existing records seem to indicate that Reilly was working for British intelligence during this period. During the Boer War, he is reported to have been in Holland where, portraying a Russian arms merchant, he reported to London on Dutch armaments shipments to South Africa. Reilly then traveled to Port Arthur in Manchuria, disguised as a timber salesman, to spy on the Russian’s new naval base. He apparently sold information regarding the base to the Japanese as well as passing it on to British intelligence. The whole time, he continued to work his own schemes and businesses—to his profit and his unfortunate client’s regret.
It was his involvement in the d’Arcy affair that earned Reilly his greatest notoriety to date and the thanks of a grateful British government. At the instigation of the First Sea Lord, Reilly was sent to the Middle East to investigate reports about large oil resources discovered in Persia. The Royal Navy was contemplating modernizing the fleet by changing from coal to oil for fuel and these resources, if they existed, would be vital to those plans. Reilly reported that the information was factual, but that an Australian, William d’Arcy, had been granted the development concession by the Shah. d’Arcy needed substantial financing to develop the oilfields and was in Cannes working a deal with France and the Rothschilds when Reilly turned up. Disguised as a priest collecting donations for charity, he barged his way onto the Rothschilds’ yacht where the negotiations with the French government were under way.
Taking advantage of the disruption he had caused, Reilly lured d’Arcy away for a private conversation and convinced him on the spot that he could make a better deal with the British government. D’Arcy agreed, and in May 1905, the agreement was made, resulting in the British government holding major shares in the British Petroleum company.
Reilly’s next big assignment was in 1909 in Germany, where he took a job as a welder in the Krupp armament works. Volunteering for the night shift, he was easily able to break into the company’s files and copy the plans for their newest weapons at his leisure. With the situation in Europe worsening, this information on Germany’s armaments industry was of great value to the future British war effort.
Reilly’s Problem Solving Methods Were Nothing Short of Genius
Of equal interest to the British was information concerning Germany’s rapidly expanding fleet. Once again, they turned to Reilly, whose methods in solving the problem were nothing short of genius. Instead of going to Germany to acquire the information, Reilly traveled to Russia, where he managed to persuade agents of the German shipbuilding firm of Blohm & Voss to take him on as a partner. After their disastrous war with the Japanese, the Russians were looking to rebuild their fleet, and in 1911 they began soliciting contract proposals from several foreign shipbuilders. For his plan to work, Reilly needed to establish a good relationship with Russia’s Minister of Marine. He did so by first sleeping with the minister’s wife to gain ready access to their home. Once “inside,” he was able to convince the minister with relative ease to award the building contracts to his firm. As Blohm & Voss’s shipbuilding plans for the Russian fleet were very much similar to those used by the German Navy, Reilly had no difficulty in acquiring copies of German Navy plans without raising German suspicions about his true designs.
When several British shipbuilding firms discovered that Reilly had gotten the contracts for the Germans instead of the British, they considered his actions to be bordering on treason—that is, until the Admiralty began receiving copies of German naval plans. To top it all, with the substantial commissions Reilly received for acquiring the Russian contracts, he paid the Russian minister to divorce his wife, whom Reilly then married. Nadine was apparently Reilly’s second wife and his first bigamous marriage.
His new wife on his arm, Reilly is said to have become a member of the Allied Entente and moved to Japan, where he worked as an agent for the Russo-Asiatic Bank, purchasing Japanese supplies for the Russian Army. In 1914, they moved to New York, where Reilly is known to have had an office at 120 Broadway. While in New York, he is alternately credited with countering German attempts to sabotage American efforts to supply the Allies during the war and purchasing and transporting American supplies for the Russian Army. With the beginning of World War I, Reilly’s services were in high demand. The operations he performed during this time were literally the stuff of legend and have added greatly to his reputation. One of the most amazing was when he disguised himself as a German officer on Prince Ruprecht of Bavaria’s staff and participated in a meeting of the Chiefs of the German High Command with Kaiser Wilhelm himself in attendance!
From New York Reilly moved to Canada, where in October 1917 he joined the Royal Flying Corps. Back in England, Reilly volunteered his services to MI-1c (which became MI6 in 1921) of the British SIS and was accepted as an agent on March 15, 1918. He was given the agent number ST1, which simply meant that his handlers were from the SIS’s Stockholm, Sweden, office. Reilly later claimed to have been working for British intelligence shortly after arriving in London in 1895, but according to MI6 documents, he was not officially hired until 1918.
Reilly Preferred to Have Them Humiliated Than Killed
The Russian Revolution of 1917 had overthrown the Czar, and the British government was concerned that the new regime would try to make a separate peace with Germany. Reilly was subsequently sent to Russia in May 1918 with instructions to try and keep Russia in the war, a seemingly impossible task, especially for one man. In grand fashion, Reilly developed a plan of operation, though it went somewhat beyond what the British government had envisioned. Using British funds, he would buy off the Latvian mercenaries—the only disciplined, well-armed force the Bolsheviks could rely on—who safeguarded Lenin and Trotsky. With the Latvians under his control, Reilly would capture Lenin and Trotsky and then parade them through the streets of Moscow in their underclothes! Reilly did not want them killed —he was afraid that would make martyrs of them—just humiliated enough to break their power. At the same time, he organized a group of socialist counterrevolutionaries who would step in and establish a new government, while Reilly would in fact run the new government from behind the scenes.
Reilly’s operation was proceeding according to plan, generating confusion and casting doubts on the loyalty of the Latvians, when Dora Kaplan’s attempt to assassinate Lenin brought everything crashing down. To further complicate matters, a French journalist sympathetic to the Bolsheviks revealed the plot, putting the British in a very bad light. The Bolsheviks reacted violently, arresting everyone suspected of being an enemy and initiating what became known as the Red Terror. A wanted man, Reilly was forced to flee for his life. “Hiding in plain sight,” he avoided arrest by posing as a member of the Cheka, the Bolshevik secret police. Despite several close calls, with some assistance he managed to escape Russia and return to England, where he supposedly was awarded the Military Cross for his efforts.
In 1919, he was back in New York, still working against the Bolsheviks. That year, a number of mail bomb explosions took place in the United States. These terrorist acts were said to be the work of the Bolsheviks and a “Red Scare” panic spread throughout the country. Between the time of the mailings and when the bombs detonated, Reilly reportedly left the country. Although there is no concrete evidence, it could be surmised that Reilly may have been involved. At this point the SIS had had enough of Reilly’s anti-Bolshevik actions and in 1921 he was fired from the service. That same year, he and Nadine divorced. Although Reilly was still legally married to Margaret, his first wife, in 1922 he committed his second bigamous marriage, to a young actress he had met in Berlin named Pepita Bobadilla.
For the next several years, Reilly used his numerous connections and literally all of his substantial wealth to help organize and fund anti-Bolshevik resistance groups inside Russia. In 1922, an organization called the “Monarchist Union of Central Russia” (MUCR), which claimed to be a resistance group of prominent White (noncommunist) Russians, was established. The MUCR, known simply as “The Trust,” solicited the financial and moral support of White Russian émigrés throughout Europe and several prominent White Russians were members. The ability of Trust members to come and go through Russia’s restricted borders and their apparent power within the communist regime lent credibility to the organization. The Trust was in fact a cover for an OGPU operation whose purpose was to discover from its unsuspecting members the names of agents inside Russia, identify and neutralize its opponents outside Russia, and control foreign or White Russian agents and propaganda coming into Russia.
Murder or Suicide?
The Trust sent out invitations to leading anti-Bolshevik figures to return to Russia to meet and confer with Trust officials, claiming they had nothing to fear from the Bolsheviks. One such invitation was sent to Boris Savinkov, a former Minister of War, and the man whom Reilly was counting on to lead the counterrevolution he was organizing. Savinkov accepted the invitation and in 1924 reentered Russia at an often used and usually safe entry point along the Russian-Finnish border known as “The Window.” He was promptly arrested by the OGPU, imprisoned, and then killed a few months later. His death was reported as a “suicide.”
Upon hearing of Savinkov’s betrayal and capture, Reilly immediately began looking for a way to strike back at the Bolsheviks. His opportunity came with the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, an agreement initiated by Britain’s first Labor government, which would recognize the Soviet Union and arrange for substantial British loans to help prop up that government. Reilly forged a document addressed to the British Communist Party. Known as the “Zinoviev Letter,” after the head of the Third Communist International, it called for British communists and Labor Party sympathizers to prepare for a communist revolution in Britain. The Zinoviev Letter was released by MI-1c to the local papers a few days before the national elections. It caused an immediate uproar and no end of trouble for the Labor government, which lost the election by a landslide. The letter also caused Anglo-Soviet relations to collapse and even delayed the United States’ recognition of the Soviet Union. The Zinoviev Letter was one of Reilly’s greatest triumphs, and he purportedly said of the affair, “It’s a fake, but it’s the result that counts.”
This was to be Reilly’s last notable success against the Bolsheviks. In September 1925, for reasons that are still unclear, Reilly accepted an invitation from The Trust to come to Russia for a meeting. He crossed the border at the Window and arrived in Moscow, where on September 27 he mailed a postcard to a colleague in the SIS simply stating that “all was fine.” No further communication was received and his whereabouts caused a stir within the SIS. Reilly’s disappearance was front-page news in Britain for several days and numerous attempts were made to discover what had happened to him. The Bolsheviks eventually claimed he had been shot trying to escape over the Finnish border. He had in fact been arrested by the OGPU, interrogated for five weeks, and then murdered.
The Original James Bond?
For years, the search for Reilly continued, with people claiming they had seen him alive in various parts of Europe. Some in the intelligence services even contemplated the possibility, not unthinkable knowing Reilly’s capabilities, that he had cut a deal with the Bolsheviks and was now secretly working for them. His wife, Pepita, believing him still alive and a prisoner of the communists, wrote a book telling his story in an effort to keep the search going. Published in 1933, Sidney Reilly, Britain’s Master Spy: His Story, revealed many of Reilly’s escapades, both real and fictional, and greatly perpetuated his already growing legend. Moscow continued to hide the truth, sticking by its lie that he was killed trying to escape. In 2002, a former OGPU colonel, Boris Gudz, gave an interview to Andrew Cook, author of On His Majesty’s Secret Service: Sidney Reilly ST1, in which he claims to have been part of the unit responsible for interrogating and then murdering Sidney Reilly on November 5, 1925.
Master spy, high-stakes gambler, lothario, and confidence trickster are just some of the names, or perhaps talents, that can be applied to the astonishing Sidney Reilly. In his time, he was undoubtedly the finest intelligence agent in the world, and the British press described him as “the greatest spy in history.” There can be little doubt that he revolutionized espionage, changing it from a “gentleman’s game” to one of harsh reality and cold practicality. Winning at any cost was what was important, the new “name of the game.”
Perhaps the best compliment that could be given him, especially in today’s world, comes from Ian Fleming, who based his creation, James Bond, on Reilly’s exploits: “James Bond is just a piece of nonsense I dreamed up. He’s not a Sidney Reilly, you know!”
Michael Novakhov’s favorite articles on Inoreader
On this “Face the Nation” broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:
- National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan
- General Joseph Votel
- Sen. J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio
- Robert Mardini, director-general of the International Committee of Red Cross
Click here to browse full transcripts of “Fac the Nation.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.
There has been a significant escalation in the fighting between Israel and Hamas in the last 48 hours. In Gaza, the humanitarian situation has deteriorated even further. There has been no pause to let aid trucks in days. Some communication systems have been restored today following a blackout that started on Friday.
Meanwhile, there have been more attacks from Iran-backed militia groups targeting U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. The Eisenhower carrier strike group has crossed into the Mediterranean Sea, where it will join with other U.S. Navy assets already in the region.
We begin this morning in Tel Aviv with our Charlie D’Agata.
(Begin VT)
CHARLIE D’AGATA (voice-over): What the Israeli government calls its second stage of the war began with its fiercest aerial onslaught yet, then an artillery barrage, according to Israeli Defense Forces video and tanks, flanked by soldiers on foot, rolling inside Gaza, without pulling back this time, even if Israeli officials stopped short of calling it an invasion,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it Israel’s second war of independence.
(PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: “The war inside the Gaza Strip will be long and difficult,” he said, “and we are ready for it.”
Addressing whether what aid agencies call the catastrophic crisis unfolding inside Gaza constitutes a war crime, he said:
(PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: “The IDF is the most moral army in the world. The IDF does everything to avoid harming those who are not involved.”
But each airstrike and artillery shell brings more death and destruction for more than two million people with nearly nowhere to take shelter. The Hamas-run Health Ministry now says more than 8,000 people have been killed, around half of them children.
(WOMAN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: A mother mourns, saying: “Leave him in my arms.”
There are fears for those held beneath Gaza too. Even before the wave of airstrikes and the heavy bombardment that continues, there was growing concern for more than 200 hostages still trapped inside Gaza, making things much more complicated for special forces hostage rescue teams, former Mossad intelligence chief Haim Tomer told us.
Do they have the intelligence or the equipment in the tunneling system in the middle of all of this chaos to find out where these hostages are being kept?
HAIM TOMER (Former Israeli Intelligence Chief): To be very frank and direct, it’s kind of a mission impossible. To find the hostages, intelligence-wise, is very, very, very difficult, almost on the line of impossible.
CHARLIE D’AGATA: Hamas has still been able to retaliate, missiles hitting a Tel Aviv neighborhood.
And while the Israeli government’s stated goal is the total destruction of Hamas and the return of the hostages, the long-term strategy is less clear.
Former Vice Prime Minister Tzipi Livni.
What does Gaza look like after a ground invasion?
TZIPI LIVNI (Former Israeli Vice Prime Minister): Well, I think that we should think about it right now, not to wait until the end of the ground maneuver operation, look at the situation, and think not just about the next day, but about the next year, next 10 years, think about the future.
Now, it’s clear, should be clear, Israel doesn’t want to reoccupy Gaza.
CHARLIE D’AGATA: But how Israel’s new phase of the war is waged, how long, how many more people may die will determine whether it remains confined to this tragic little corner of the Middle East or ignites the region.
(End VT)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: This morning, the U.N. raised alarm that civil order is starting to break down inside Gaza, thousands of people storming their warehouses and distribution centers, in a desperate need for wheat, flour and hygiene supplies – Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
Jake, good morning to you.
JAKE SULLIVAN (U.S. National Security Adviser): Good morning, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Does the U.S. know if the roughly 500 to 600 Americans in Gaza have survived the past 23 days of bombing, and have the hostages?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: We are in regular contact with most of the Americans who are in Gaza.
We can’t say every single one, but all of the ones who reach out to us, we follow up with on a regular basis, even sometimes a daily basis. And so we know that many of them are still there, still waiting to get out. And we are working actively to try to make that happen.
The challenge right now, Margaret, is that the Egyptians are prepared to let Americans and other foreign nationals out of Gaza. The Israelis have no issue with that. But Hamas is preventing their departure and making a series of demands. We’re trying to work through that to create a circumstance where all of the Americans who are in Gaza are able to get out.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about Israel and how it has explained its mission to the U.S. government.
Saturday, their military said it committed it killed a Hamas leader who had overseen the drone strikes and the paragliders who carried out that horrific attack on October 7. They’d already announced that they’d killed the commander of forces responsible for the massacre at kibbutz Nirim and another key Hamas commander.
Have they told you yet at which point they will declare this mission a success?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, they have declared – they have told us in broad terms that making sure that Hamas can never again threaten Israel in the way it threatened Israel before is their core strategic objective in this conflict.
But in terms of what the specific milestones are, that is something that ultimately is up to Israel. This is their military operation. They will make that decision. And we will continue to ask the hard questions of them, Margaret, that we would ask of ourselves in a military operation like this.
What exactly are the objectives? How are the means matched to the objectives? And how will this evolve over time? That’s a conversation we’ve been having. It’s a conversation we will continue to have in the days ahead.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So it sounds like that endgame has not been specifically laid out.
Do you expect, at this point, a full-scale Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza, or is that off the table?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, I will let the Israeli Defense Forces speak to what their operational planning is. And I’m not going to characterize it on television today.
What I will say is that the United States has been very focused on a core challenge here, which is that Hamas is using civilians as human shields. They’re hiding behind civilians. They’re hiding among civilians. They’re putting rockets and other terrorist infrastructure in civilian areas.
That creates an added burden for the Israeli Defense Forces. But it does not lessen their responsibility to distinguish between terrorists and innocent civilians and to protect the lives of innocent civilians as they conduct this military operation. That’s true of striking from the air. It is true of going in on the ground. And this is something that we talk about with the Israelis on a daily basis.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand, but I also understand now that there has been a tremendous amount of death in Gaza.
I know President Biden said the other day he has no confidence in the numbers presented by Palestinian authorities in Gaza. But I wonder, at which point does the U.S. say there needs to be some cessation of violence?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, first, President Biden was making a straightforward point, which is that the particular institution, the Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, we can’t take what Hamas says at face value.
But we have also been clear repeatedly that we have seen thousands of Palestinian civilians killed in this conflict, that that is a tragedy, each and every one of those individual deaths is a tragedy, and that the life of every civilian, Palestinian, Israeli, anyone, is sacred and has to be protected.
And it is important for Israel to distinguish between going after terrorist targets to take out terrorists who continue to threaten Israel and going after civilians. That is an obligation and a responsibility for Israel.
And it’s something that we will continue to press them on. We also believe that there should be humanitarian pauses to get hostages out, potentially to get aid in. And we will continue to work toward that end.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know – Jake, I have heard this. And, frankly, some of the language is a little contradictory, or it sounds that way, because Secretary Blinken said, even a temporary pause in bombing would benefit Hamas. He said that on this program last week.
Then, a few days later, he went to the U.N. and said a humanitarian pause must be considered. Then the U.S. at the U.N. voted against a humanitarian truce.
So, what exactly is the Biden administration calling for here? Because everyone from the pope to the World Health Organization to the U.N. is saying, just stop the violence for a period of time, at least.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, what a lot of people are calling for is just a stop to Israeli military action against terrorists, period, just stop, no more, Israel cannot go after terrorists who conducted this largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and who continue to fire rockets and continue to attack Israel.
We have taken the position that Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. That is different from what Secretary Blinken spoke about, which was a humanitarian pause, a pause in the fighting, for example, so that there’s a period of time where there can be safe passage of hostages.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, just hours?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: President Biden and his whole team are working extremely hard to get those hostages out.
We will continue to do that. I won’t put a time frame on it. But I will say that, given the number of hostages, it would be more than just hours if we were able to secure their release, and we are actively working to secure their release.
And, similarly, when Secretary Blinken said that any pause in fighting benefits Hamas, that’s a reality. There are a lot of complicated realities in this. A humanitarian pause would be a good thing to get hostages out, but you can bet that Hamas will try to use that time to their advantage as well.
These are the things that Israel is trying to grapple with.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So to that point, Benny Gantz, who is part of the Netanyahu war cabinet, said: “We will listen to our friends, but we will act in accordance with what is right for us.”
Is there any daylight, Jake, between the U.S. and the Netanyahu government right now?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: We have conversations, like friends do, on the hard questions that I talked about before, on issues associated with humanitarian aid, on distinguishing between terrorists and innocent civilians, on how Israel is thinking through its military operation.
Those conversations happen multiple times a day. They happen between the president and the prime minister. They happen by the secretary of state, secretary of defense, myself, other senior members of our administration. We talk candidly. We talk directly. We share our views in an unvarnished way, and we will continue to do that.
But sitting here in public, I will just say that the United States is going to make its principles and propositions absolutely clear, including the sanctity of innocent human life.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: And then we will continue to provide our advice to Israel in private.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand this is another country’s decisions here, but the U.S. gives more than $3 billion a year in aid to Israel.
Some of those weapons being used in Gaza are purchased or helped to be purchased with U.S. taxpayer funds. So whether it’s intended or not, to some of the world, it looks like the U.S. is endorsing all of what Israel is doing here.
Are you at all asking the military to be more limited in its tactics or more strategic?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: The United States of America, when we transfer weapons to another country, whether it’s Israel or anyone else, requests, requires an assurance that those weapons will be used in accordance with the law of armed conflict.
And we seek accountability to ensure that that is the case. We will continue to do that. We will also work around the clock to try to make sure that lifesaving humanitarian assistance gets to people in need.
But, fundamentally, what President Biden says, how he has described things, from the point of view of civilian protection, access to lifesaving goods and medicine for civilians, this is where the United States stands. And we do not stand for the killing of innocent people, whether it be Palestinian, Israeli or otherwise. And we weep and grieve for every lost life, and will continue to do so.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that going to be your message to Saudi Arabia’s defense minister when you meet tomorrow?
I know you know a number of Arab partners are concerned about the level of violence in Gaza right now.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: We’ve been talking to our Arab partners, including to Saudi Arabia, about the unfolding crisis in Gaza.
We listen to them carefully. We share our perspective. And, yes, we will have the opportunity to dive deep, not just on what is happening today, but on what tomorrow could bring, because what President Biden said in the Rose Garden this past week was that we can’t go back to October 6.
That means Hamas can no longer terrorize Israel, but it also means that there needs to be a political horizon for the Palestinian people, two states for two peoples, the right of Palestinians to live in safety, dignity and equality. And we’re going to work towards that.
And Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, have a role and a responsibility in that as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, do you now believe Iran is deterred?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, what I believe is that the United States will follow through on what we say we’re going to do.
We said that, if our troops were attacked, we would respond. We responded. If they’re attacked again, we will respond again. And we are vigilant, because we are seeing elevated threats against our forces throughout the region and an elevated risk of this conflict spreading to other parts of the region. We are doing everything in our power to deter and prevent that.
But I’m not going to predict what the future brings, other than to say that, if we are attacked, we will respond.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jake Sullivan, thank you for your time.
And Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to General Joseph Votel, former CENTCOM commander overseeing operations in the Middle East.
General, it’s good to have you with us.
I want to pick up where we left off with the national security adviser. He said: “The U.S. has elevated threats against U.S. forces, elevated risk of the conflict spreading.”
What are the trigger points you are concerned about?
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL (RET.) (Former Commander, U.S. Central Command): Thanks. Good morning, Margaret. It’s good to be with you.
So, I think the thing that I have been concerned about and – and probably many have been concerned about is that any miscalculation along the line can move this to a different level. So, an attack on – on an American installation, whether it’s military or diplomatic or commercial, that causes casualties, significant casualties and death, I think, could – could significantly change the calculus – calculus for us.
And, certainly, a much broader attack by the so-called Iranian threat network here, whether it’s Hezbollah or whether it’s Iranian-aligned militia groups in Syria that broaden the conflict, I think these are all aspects that could – that could lead to a widening of the – of the conflict.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There have already been 20 militia attacks on U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq. There are about 19 servicepeople who suffered from traumatic brain injuries. One contractor died.
How do you understand that level of aggression?
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL: Well, I – it’s very clear that, I mean, Iran is behind this.
Their – their – their elements in – in Iraq and – and to some extent in Syria are perpetrating these attacks. And, as the national security adviser said, we’ve got to – we’ve got to hold them accountable for that. And so it is critically important to not just be responsive, but to be directly responsive and to be forceful in our manner.
Ultimately, what we need to do is compel these elements and Iran, who is behind all of this, to stop this type of action right now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In Israel, their prime minister said yesterday, this is going to be a long war and we’re in the second phase.
You just heard Jake Sullivan say the U.S. is still asking questions like, what exactly are the objectives?
How do you describe what the IDF is doing right now in Gaza?
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL: Well, I think what the IDF is doing is – and I think that the task they’ve probably been given is to destroy the war-making capacity of Hamas.
So, they are going after command-and-control locations. They’re going after logistics locations. They’re going after headquarters locations. And they’re going after the likely sites that – that Hamas would use to perpetrate missile strikes or rocket strikes onto – onto Israel.
So, from my perspective, it’s pretty clear what the – what the Israeli military is doing. And I think their job is to – is to – is to destroy that war-making capacity of Hamas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Should they stop once capturing Gaza City?
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL: Well, again, I think they’ll have to make an assessment of – of – of their progress.
Most of the – most of the effort now seems to be in the north – northern part of Gaza and around Gaza City, which I think, as – as most people who study this will recognize, is the – are the primary areas where – where Hamas operates.
So, they’ve definitely directed their operations against the places where Hamas is. And – and I think they’re – they’re actually approaching this in an incremental manner. I think we’ve seen introduction of additional forces over the last couple of days. So, they’re thinking about it that way.
And, of course, like any military force would do, they have to take assessments of their – of their progress as they – as they continue with their operations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There is concern about another front here outside of Gaza.
And I know, on Wednesday, President Biden said he is alarmed by – quote – “extremist settlers attacking Palestinians in the West Bank” in – quote – “places they’re entitled to be.”
One of Israel’s government ministers, Ben-Gvir, has video of him arming Israeli civilians with M16 and M4 assault rifles. How concerned are you about an uptick in violence in the West Bank?
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL: Well, again, I think this goes back to what we just talked about a few moments ago. And that’s the miscalculations.
I mean, this – this – this, it’s a – it’s a tinderbox. And so, when you have people that are scared, they have weapons, they’re trying to protect themselves, then the chances for something going wrong in this, I think, increase, so yes.
And – and – and – and the rhetoric has been – has been very strong about this, about the vulnerability and the fact that – that Israeli settlers in the West Bank are targets. I mean, that’s essentially what – what these – these Islamic movements have been saying. So, I think it’s – I think it’s an ordinary, critical situation and could flow – flow out very quickly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: General Votel, thank you for your analysis today.
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL: Thank you. Good to be…
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’ll be right back, so stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: After 22 days, the House is back in business.
Our Scott MacFarlane takes a closer look at the new speaker, Louisiana’s Mike Johnson.
(Begin VT)
SCOTT MACFARLANE (voice-over): Thrust from obscurity and the backbench of the U.S. House in just his fourth term…
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON (R-Louisiana): Let the enemies of freedom around the world hear us loud and clear. The people’s house is back in business.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SCOTT MACFARLANE: The congressman from Louisiana’s ascent to be second in line to the presidency…
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Would you all like to get right into governing?
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SCOTT MACFARLANE: … was so unexpected and so quick, his wife missed the vote.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: She’s not here. We couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly.
(LAUGHTER)
SCOTT MACFARLANE: That overnight rise to the most powerful position in Congress…
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: You’re going to see this group looking – working like a well-oiled machine.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: … also prevented the traditional deep dive into his career and his positions before he took the gavel.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun? I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s – that’s my world view. That’s what I believe.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: The evangelical Christian is an attorney specializing in constitutional law, once a talk radio host who has for decades toed a hard line against abortion rights.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: What about the brutal violence and the murder that is committed upon the preborn child?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: Seventeen years before Roe v. Wade was overturned, he wrote an editorial about equating abortion with the Holocaust and a judicial system allowing abortions to Hitler. He has been staunchly against gay rights and has referred to it as inherently unnatural and voted against legalizing same-sex marriage.
After the 2020 presidential election, Johnson was an architect of congressional efforts to overturn the results, not only voting to decertify the results, but galvanizing House Republicans to join a lawsuit in Texas to challenge the outcome, and espousing a conspiracy theory.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: When you have a software system that is used all around the country that is suspect because it came from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: Now that he’s speaker, Johnson has less to say about that.
QUESTION: Mr. Johnson, you helped lead the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Do you…
(CROSSTALK)
WOMAN: Shut up! Shut up!
SCOTT MACFARLANE: But if Republicans maintain the majority next November, Johnson would lead the House in the next certification, January 6, 2025.
He has been bolstered by the defectors who removed Kevin McCarthy.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT GAETZ (R-Florida): The swamp is on the run. MAGA is ascendant. And if – if you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to MAGA Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: And those same defectors are the ones open to shutting down the government if their demands aren’t met. The new speaker now has just 19 days to keep that from happening.
(End VT)
SCOTT MACFARLANE: Speaker Johnson said he’d like to split aid for Israel from aid for Ukraine, which puts immediate aid for Ukraine in a fragile position, because there are dozens of Republicans who oppose it.
Margaret, he would need a critical mass of Democrats to support it then. And bills with a critical mass of Democratic support is one reason why there’s no Speaker Kevin McCarthy anymore.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good point.
Scott, thank you.
We will be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with a lot more with Ohio Republican Senator J.D. Vance.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation.
Ohio Republican Senator J.D. Vance joins us now in studio.
Good morning and good to have you here face to face.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE (R-Ohio): Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, there is a lot I want to get to with you.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But I want to start on – on one of the big themes we’ve been talking about, which is all the national security threats facing the United States right now.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Biden asked for $106 billion in aid from Congress. Ukraine, Israel, the border, and countering China. I’m surprised, as a Republican, that the issue you’re talking the most about is not the U.S. border. Why?
J.D. VANCE: Well, we care a lot about the border, of course. But the – what I’m saying is that we should divide the packages and actually have distinct debates on each one of these questions, especially the Israel issue for a couple of reasons.
First of all, Israel needs the aid and they need it immediately. Second of all, there’s broad bipartisan consensus that we should be supporting Israel. And third, and most importantly, we’re stretched way too thin. The president’s budget request betrays a fundamental misunderstanding I think of the challenges in the country. We cannot support a three-pronged conflict in a war. We don’t make enough weapons. Our manufacturing capacity is too weak. We need to pick and choose. To pick and choose, Congress has – – needs to have a real debate, not collapse these packages together and pretend we can do everything at once. We can’t.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, let’s unpack some of what you said there, because you are talking about the exact same amount for Israel that President Biden is talking about.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s roughly $14 billion. But you’ve removed humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Leader McConnell was on this program last Sunday and he supports the package.
Here’s what he said.
(Begin VT)
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-Kentucky): Well, we want to make sure we’re not sending money to Hamas, I can tell you that. But there are genuine humanitarian needs for the people in Gaza who are not Hamas, who have been thrown under the bus by what Hamas is. Innocent people.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Half of the population of Gaza are children.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why don’t you think the United States can do what Leader McConnell talked about there and provide aid to them?
J.D. VANCE: Well, first, Leader McConnell is right of course that there are a lot of innocent people in Gaza. We certainly don’t want to cause any harm to them. We also have to be again reasonable about what we can accomplish. Who delivers the humanitarian assistance. Fundamentally, Hamas is in control of the entire territory. So, if you deliver a large amount of humanitarian assistance, who’s it going to go to, the children in Gaza or to the Hamas fighters on the front line. I fear it’s going to go to Hamas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the United Nations, the Red Cross, all the international organizations who have been there and administering and frankly stepping up because the government has failed the Palestinian people in the words of a lot of analysts on both sides of the aisle.
J.D. VANCE: Stepping up, but I think there’s still a lot of evidence with a lot of these international organizations that when we send aid into Gaza, a lot of it goes into the wrong hands. And that’s what those of us who are critical of the president’s posture are really worrying about. We don’t want to basically fund two sides of the exact same conflict. Fund Hamas. Fund Israel. It seems like a really bad deal for American taxpayers. Most of all it’s just stupid.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s not aid to Hamas. It’s aid to the Palestinian people.
J.D. VANCE: Sure. And I – and look it –
MARGARET BRENNAN: A million of which are children.
J.D. VANCE: And if I could wave a magic wand and give aid to the Palestinian children, I will. But given the realities on the ground, I think we divert resources to Gaza, it’s going to fall in the wrong hands.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you don’t trust any of the international organizations that are doing that right now?
J.D. VANCE: I – I don’t trust Hamas on the ground. And I certainly think the international organizations, look, some of them are good people, some of them actually have some compromised positions. We can’t assume that just because it flows to an international organization it’s going to go to the kids and not to the fighters.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve been very critical of President Biden’s response to Iran and its proxy forces.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And the threats they pose to our troops.
J.D. VANCE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, spin that forward for me. You’re in the Senate. Would you authorize the use of force by the president against the state of Iran?
J.D. VANCE: Right now, absolutely not. I think that we should be trying to deescalate the situation. Of course, we need to have red lines though, If the Iranians attack American troops, if they play an escalatory role –
MARGARET BRENNAN: They have multiple times.
J.D. VANCE: If they play an excitatory role in the conflict we need to be willing to respond. They have attacked – certain militia groups have attacked. And think we’ve done the right thing, a proportionate response. If they hit us, we have to hit them back. But if you’re talking about an attack on the Iranian mainland, I think that would be a significant escalation. Right now it would be a mistake.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, on the portion that you are supporting for aid to Israel, the prime minister said last night that this is going to be a long war. But you heard Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, say they still have to ask specific and hard questions of the Israeli leadership, like what exactly are you doing next? What is the end game here.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Doesn’t that trouble you because there are people who would say maybe there should be strings attached to some of this aid. Do you have an open checkbook for Israel?
J.D. VANCE: Well, certainly it’s a troubling situation. It’s a troubling situation, of course, because 1,500 Israeli were slaughtered by Hamas. I think what we have to have is some respect for our allies. They’re not asking us to send ground troops. All they’re asking us really is for weapons. And we should have some respect for their strategic imperative and also the fact that they know what they’re doing within their own country.
The goal here is not to have an unlimited response –
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is within Gaza.
J.D. VANCE: An unlimited response here. The Israelis themselves I think have scoped the operation. They seem to be targeting a very narrow thing, which is degrading Hamas. I think we have to have some respect for our Israeli allies that they know what they’re doing in their own country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, they haven’t explained it yet to the U.S. government is what the national security adviser was – was saying there. So, you are giving them the benefit there.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to talk about one place you’re very clear that you aren’t giving them the benefit of the doubt and that is to Ukraine.
J.D. VANCE: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We just heard the new House speaker. You have some similarities with him in terms of separating out Israel aid from Ukraine aid.
J.D. VANCE: Correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He did say, though, “we can’t allow Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don’t believe it would stop there. We’re not going to abandon them.” What part of that statement is objectionable to you?
J.D. VANCE: Well, nothing is objectionable in the sense that if I could wave a magic wand and throw Putin out of Ukraine I would. But what we have to accept is there’s a difference between what should happen and what can happen. America has limited capacity.
Just in the Israeli conflict, for example, there are 300,000 artillery shells the Israeli would love to have access to. They don’t because to them. Why? Because we sent them to Ukraine. We have a rising threat of China in east Asia. There are weapons the Taiwanese need that we can’t send because we sent them to Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, to your –
J.D. VANCE: We have to focus. That’s – that’s all I’m saying.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, on that –
J.D. VANCE: Please.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Portion of it, though, Leader McConnell spent a good amount of time talking about, of the $60 billion for Ukraine, it’s actually kind of mislabeled because $45 billion of it is for some of this industrial policy, including artillery manufactured in Ohio.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve got a tank manufacturer in Ohio, a combat vehicle manufacturer there, General Dynamics. So, if that – are you against that if it benefits your state?
J.D. VANCE: Look, I’m good for benefits of the state, but this particular policy we have to be careful, Margaret. We have to remember that we cannot flip the switch and turn back on America’s industrial might overnight. It takes years –
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you do want the investment in all that industrial buildup?
J.D. VANCE: I want investment in the industrial buildup for America’s national security interests, not to throw billions of dollars in Ukraine before that industrial buildup even happens. We cannot –
MARGARET BRENNAN: So why not prioritize that first?
J.D. VANCE: Well, we should. That’s exactly my point, in fact.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before Israel.
J.D. VANCE: We should prioritize the buildup of America’s industrial base and we should devote it to our true allies, like Israel, and, of course, the rising threat in east Asia.
My whole point here is that even if we strike to rebuild the industrial might of this country, we don’t have enough capacity to support a three- front war. We’ve got to focus, and I think we should be focusing on Israel and Taiwan.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, more to talk about with you but we have to take a break.
J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I have to leave it there.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: CBS News producer Marwan Al Ghoul lives in Gaza and he joins us by phone.
Marwan, I know it’s difficult to communicate with the outside world right now. What can you tell us about what has changed since Israel expanded its operations in Gaza?
MARWAN AL GHOUL (via telephone): Well, first of all, once communication was cut, it was a miserable life. It was miserable before but now it’s more and more. That most bad thing – I mean the war is (INAUDIBLE) as no communication once there is air – airstrike and caused (INAUDIBLE) people, injuries, nobody can call the ambulances. Nobody can call the civil defense. Even the people themselves don’t know who got dead or who got injured.
So, it’s what really terrible life in case of cut all of the communication in Gaza.
Today morning I was driving from Rafah city in the south towards the north of Gaza. And in Gaza City, I saw empty streets, but a lot of destruction everywhere.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are there any safe zones, Marwan? Is there any place safe to take shelter?
MARWAN AL GHOUL: Unfortunately not. There is no any safe place in Gaza. But for many displaced people went to (INAUDIBLE) school, which is full of thousands and thousands of people in (INAUDIBLE) miserable life in these schools, not enough water, not enough food, no place to sleep. It’s not healthy at all. It’s – it’s very difficult to describe how the people who (INAUDIBLE) in (INAUDIBLE) schools live in.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The United Nations said that order is beginning to break down, that people are panicking. They are running low on food, on water.
MARWAN AL GHOUL: Oh, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: On basic supplies.
MARWAN AL GHOUL: Oh, yes. That’s right. Today morning I saw people went to the United Nations stores and they break the doors and took out some food like wheat and some water. It is not enough. But the people break – broke the gates and the siege of the (INAUDIBLE) and took the foods over there. You know, the people are angry. You need to like (sp?) few hours to get bread, which is the most kind of food people needed. It’s really miserable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What about medical supplies, Marwan? Are the hospitals full? What are you seeing in terms of who is being injured right now?
MARWAN AL GHOUL: Well yesterday I was in Al-Shifa Hospital, which is the biggest one in Gaza Strip. I saw, first of all, all of their beds, medical beds, are full of – inside the departments, in the (INAUDIBLE) departments, ICU, are all full. And they keep the most dangerous inside and they release – and they release the others outside of the hospital in the garden. I saw tents full of injuries and some of them in – even in dangerous case, the beds, medical beds, are outside of the hospital. Some patients and some wounded people, you know, lie on the ground. It’s very difficult to describe.
Anyhow, the medical sector in Gaza, it’s almost collapsed. It’s very difficult to make operations. You know, the numbers of doctors is – is few numbers in the normal time, but now dozens comes to the hospital at one time, at once.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Marwan, you’ve seen a lot of conflict in Gaza over the years, and I wonder how you would describe what’s happening now versus past conflict in Gaza.
MARWAN AL GHOUL: Well, I have been covering the conflict since 1988. But – – until now. But I have never saw or covered such this war. It’s – it’s horrible.
Before this war, I mean, about the war in 2014, the Israeli army used to send message warning to the people to leave – to leave their house before they destroy it. Now they don’t send any warning. Just suddenly they strike the house killing all of the people inside. So this is different, completely different of any other war before in Gaza Strip.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Marwan Al Ghoul, CBS producer living in Gaza, Marwan, please stay safe. Please keep your family safe.
MARWAN AL GHOUL: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Robert Mardini. He’s the director general of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and he joins us from Geneva.
Good morning to you, sir.
How much aid have you been able to get into Gaza today?
ROBERT MARDINI (Director General, International Committee of the Red Cross): Good morning, Margaret.
So, today we were able to get three additional trucks in of medicines, war wounded kits, so surgical equipment for hospitals. They are badly needed, as well as some water and sanitation equipment. They come on top of six trucks that passed on Friday.
This is good. This is positive. But this is a drop in an ocean of need. And, of course, is only a small fraction of what the Gaza Strip and Gazans need today.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We just heard on our program from a Republican senator who said that he does not trust that U.S. aid that is provided to international organizations, like yours, can actually make it to the people of Gaza and not end up in the hands of terrorists. How do you account for that?
ROBERT MARDINI: Well, as a – as a neutral impartial humanitarian organization that has been present in the Gaza Strip for – for decades now, we work in a direct implementation mode. We have our own staff delivering aid and services to – to individuals that are carefully vetted to institutions such as hospitals, such as the Al-Shifa Hospital where our surgeon very often operate hand in hand with Palestinian surgeons and our partners from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. So, we have very robust and rigorous checks in place to prevent and to insure rather that the aid goes to the right persons, those who need it the most.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This morning, the Palestinian Red Crescent, that you just mentioned, said they received threats and needed to evacuate the hospital they were told because it was going to be bombarded. Did Israel inform your partners of this? What is happening?
ROBERT MARDINI: Well, these orders of evacuation happening in the Gaza Strip are, of course, problematic for us. This hospital, Al-Quds, has close to 400 patients, most of them severely injured. There are thousands of civilians taking shelter in hospitals.
Hospitals are protected by the laws of war, by international humanitarian law. Under no circumstances hospitals should be bombed. Under no circumstance that patients should die in a hospital bed. And it is difficult to evacuate hospitals. Imagine babies in incubators. You cannot unplug this. Imagine people getting oxygen. You cannot just evacuate this unless there is a feasible and viable alternative to this. And today this alternative simply does not exist in the Gaza Strip.
And let’s remind that it is the obligation of parties to the conflict to ensure that basic services for the civilian population are covered at all times. And the burden should not go to organizes such as us or the Palestine Red Crescent Society.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are neutral. You are in contact with Hamas. On Friday there had been high hopes for a humanitarian hostage release. There wasn’t one. Do you still believe that one is possible?
ROBERT MARDINI: Let me just start by saying that – to the – to the families of hostages, that the plight of their loved ones is one of our top priorities, that we are in conversation with Hamas, with Israeli officials, and with others to ensure their safe release. We have been also proposing to visit hostages in order to ensure that they get personal medicines or simply that they can exchange messages with their loved ones.
And, of course, we stand ready to facilitate any release, hoping that this will happen. So far we were able to facilitate the release of four hostages and we stand ready to do more as soon as parties negotiate an agreement.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we hope for all of those hostage families that there is one. Thank you very much for your time today.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: As the war between Israel and Hamas enters its fourth week, we asked our Holly Williams to reflect on the magnitude of the story and how the unimaginable is now reality.
(Begin VT)
HOLLY WILLIAMS (voice over): At first the scale of the attack on October 7th was difficult to grasp, for Israelis and for us.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (on camera): This attack is being compared to Israel’s 9/11.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (voice over): Israel didn’t see the massacre coming. Civilians hunted in their own homes. And nor did we.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (on camera): How long were they planning this for?
MAN: They must have been planning this for at least a year, if not longer. Well trained. They knew how to use these weapons. They were applied correctly, which is why there was so much carnage. They knew what they were doing.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (voice over): For many Israelis it brought back nightmarish echoes of the Holocaust.
WOMAN: This is Almorg (sp?). Look at his smile.
HOLLY WILLIAMS: Aret Mayor’s (sp?) son Almorg is believed to be one of the hostages. Shown here in a Hamas propaganda video.
WOMAN: I recognize him from the beginning.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (on camera): And how did you feel at that moment?
WOMAN: Terrified.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (voice over): Israel and the Palestinians have been locked in a cycle of violence for decades.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU (Israeli Prime Minister): Hamas will understand that by attacking us they’ve made a mistake of historic proportions.
HOLLY WILLAIMS: Three days after the assault, with Israeli air strikes raining down on Gaza, and Palestinians paying for Hamas’ actions with their lives, the militants threatened to start killing the hostages, one by one, every time Israel bombed Palestinian civilians without warning. We held our breath. So did Israel. But, instead, Hamas began to release some of the hostages. Around 200 are still pawns in a high-stakes game of blackmail.
Reporting from southern Israel when the country’s at war means seeking cover whenever Hamas fires rockets.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (on camera): We just heard a whole series of very large blasts and we ran to take cover here.
HOLLY WILLIAMS (voice over): But Israelis are protected from most by the barrages by the Iron Dome Air Defense System.
Inside the Gaza Strip, there is no protection.
MARWAN AL GHOUL: I saw dozens of killed people.
HOLLY WILLIAMS: Our colleague, CBS News producer Marwan Al Ghoul, lives there with his family, risking his life to get the news out. Marwan has enriched our reporting for over two decades. And when we visited Gaza, he’s helped keep us safe.
MARWAN AL GHOUL: I am concerned of my family. This makes me sometimes angry and sometimes I feel like I need to cry.
HOLLY WILLIAMS: Pain is what the Israelis and the Palestinians share. War and politics are what divide them.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That was our Holly Williams. Thank you.
And thank you all for watching. Until next week, for Face the Nation, I’m Margaret Brennan.
Open-Source Intelligence, more commonly known as “OSINT” is a technology that uses data from publicly available sources for data intelligence purposes.
Even though similar intelligence technologies have been present over hundreds of years, OSINT has gathered momentum after the digital revolution.
And the data security laws such as GDPR have only strengthened the use of a proper OSINT system.
A lot of technologies such as machine learning, predictive analysis, and behavioral science have used the OSINT for better understanding the data subjects’ behavior and patterns.
According to the RAND model of OSINT, intelligence technology works on four key steps with respect to the information available on news, social media, and gray literature. These steps are:
- Collection
- Processing
- Exploitation
- Authentication
- Credibility Evaluation
- Contextualization
- Production
- Classification
- Dissemination
These steps allow the gathered intelligence to be more authentic and reliable. But collecting and processing such complicated processes requires more time and effort from the data scientists.
As OSINT does thorough research and involves complicated analysis, there are a few challenges which you need to overcome while implementing OSINT. We will be discussing those OSINT challenges in this blog.
Challenges in Implementing OSINT Approach
OSINT may provide you the most complex and useful intelligence, but there are a lot of factors which you need to consider while understanding the scope & challenges of OSINT.
The emphasis on data security increased with the implementation of stringent data security laws such as the General Data Protection Rule (GDPR).
These data security laws meant that data scientists had to change the way they used to collect, process, and analyze the data to draw conclusions.
Organizations now have to take into consideration the explicit consent of the data subjects before they process the analysis of the collected information. This is one of the key OSINT challenges for various organizations.
The Digital revolution has allowed users worldwide to connect and express their views freely and reach out to the global audience without spending any money.
But, the digital revolution has also increased the volume of the data. In open-source intelligence, you need to have high-quality data to get the most valuable intelligence reports.
It means organizations need to apply various content filters to get the highest data quality. Organizations are working on this OSINT challenge by training their data -scientists in improving their skill-sets.
As the quality of the collected data is expected to be high, the number of rejected and invalid data is also considerably high.
This leads to a higher level of effort required by the data scientists. Also, as OSINT computes and delivers complex and accurate data, the number of efforts required to collect, process, and deliver these data are more.
Open Source Intelligence a combination of a lot of other intelligence technologies such as Geo-Spatial Intelligence (GEOINT), Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), and the Signal Intelligence (SIGINT).
This overlapping nature makes it difficult to categorize the type of operations which will fall under OSINT.
For example, the intelligence gathered from social media analytics should ideally fall under the HUMINT, but it also falls under the OSINT as the information is openly available on the internet.
This is a fundamental OSINT challenge.
OSINT, when used in the defense applications may cause some political challenges as it involves data monitoring over the globe.
These intelligence practices prove fruitful for the government agencies such as CIA, Interpol to track and stop the potential terrorist threats.
But, at the same time, these counter-intelligence practices draw a lot of geo-political attention as it involves cross-boundary data monitoring.
This is a hard challenge to overcome as far as defense practices are concerned in OSINT technologies. Government organizations are improving the cross-boundary relations to overcome this OSINT challenge.
Future Scope of OSINT
OSINT 4 is considered as a more sophisticated tool than its previous versions due to its flexibility to work with different technologies.
It can create a database that helps the organizations to analyze the data easily and draw more accurate conclusions.
The rapid developments in technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Big Data Analytics have opened the new horizons for OSINT which weren’t previously available.
And tools such as IntelTechniques can now provide the data scientists with the required data from the intelligence gathered from these tools.
You May Like to Read:
#ICYMI Last week, #FBIDirector and intelligence chiefs from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand took part in the Bureau’s Emerging Threats and Securing Innovation Security Summit—the first-ever public gathering of Five Eyes leaders. https://t.co/6ShFPy2sEz pic.twitter.com/9WJDmtjQuv
— FBI Director Christopher Wray (@8fbidirector) October 24, 2023
image/jpeg F9N4kWPWsAAQVzI.jpg
WASHINGTON —
Fiona Hill is worried.
The onetime Russia advisor to then-President Trump fears that support for Ukraine is gradually eroding, encouraging Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to wait the West out.
“Putin feels everything is trending in his favor,” she warns.
But she’s worried about much more than that, beginning with Israel’s war in Gaza, which has made the world more dangerous.
The two conflicts aren’t directly linked, but each is likely to affect the other.
“These could be global-system-shifting wars, something like World War I and World War II, which reflected and produced major changes in the international order,” she said. “In a sense, the Hamas attack on Israel was a kind of Pearl Harbor moment. It opened a second front.”
Open-Source Intelligence, more commonly known as “OSINT” is a technology that uses data from publicly available sources for data intelligence purposes.
Even though similar intelligence technologies have been present over hundreds of years, OSINT has gathered momentum after the digital revolution.
And the data security laws such as GDPR have only strengthened the use of a proper OSINT system.
A lot of technologies such as machine learning, predictive analysis, and behavioral science have used the OSINT for better understanding the data subjects’ behavior and patterns.
According to the RAND model of OSINT, intelligence technology works on four key steps with respect to the information available on news, social media, and gray literature. These steps are:
- Collection
- Processing
- Exploitation
- Authentication
- Credibility Evaluation
- Contextualization
- Production
- Classification
- Dissemination
These steps allow the gathered intelligence to be more authentic and reliable. But collecting and processing such complicated processes requires more time and effort from the data scientists.
As OSINT does thorough research and involves complicated analysis, there are a few challenges which you need to overcome while implementing OSINT. We will be discussing those OSINT challenges in this blog.
Challenges in Implementing OSINT Approach
OSINT may provide you the most complex and useful intelligence, but there are a lot of factors which you need to consider while understanding the scope & challenges of OSINT.
The emphasis on data security increased with the implementation of stringent data security laws such as the General Data Protection Rule (GDPR).
These data security laws meant that data scientists had to change the way they used to collect, process, and analyze the data to draw conclusions.
Organizations now have to take into consideration the explicit consent of the data subjects before they process the analysis of the collected information. This is one of the key OSINT challenges for various organizations.
The Digital revolution has allowed users worldwide to connect and express their views freely and reach out to the global audience without spending any money.
But, the digital revolution has also increased the volume of the data. In open-source intelligence, you need to have high-quality data to get the most valuable intelligence reports.
It means organizations need to apply various content filters to get the highest data quality. Organizations are working on this OSINT challenge by training their data -scientists in improving their skill-sets.
As the quality of the collected data is expected to be high, the number of rejected and invalid data is also considerably high.
This leads to a higher level of effort required by the data scientists. Also, as OSINT computes and delivers complex and accurate data, the number of efforts required to collect, process, and deliver these data are more.
Open Source Intelligence a combination of a lot of other intelligence technologies such as Geo-Spatial Intelligence (GEOINT), Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), and the Signal Intelligence (SIGINT).
This overlapping nature makes it difficult to categorize the type of operations which will fall under OSINT.
For example, the intelligence gathered from social media analytics should ideally fall under the HUMINT, but it also falls under the OSINT as the information is openly available on the internet.
This is a fundamental OSINT challenge.
OSINT, when used in the defense applications may cause some political challenges as it involves data monitoring over the globe.
These intelligence practices prove fruitful for the government agencies such as CIA, Interpol to track and stop the potential terrorist threats.
But, at the same time, these counter-intelligence practices draw a lot of geo-political attention as it involves cross-boundary data monitoring.
This is a hard challenge to overcome as far as defense practices are concerned in OSINT technologies. Government organizations are improving the cross-boundary relations to overcome this OSINT challenge.
Future Scope of OSINT
OSINT 4 is considered as a more sophisticated tool than its previous versions due to its flexibility to work with different technologies.
It can create a database that helps the organizations to analyze the data easily and draw more accurate conclusions.
The rapid developments in technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Big Data Analytics have opened the new horizons for OSINT which weren’t previously available.
And tools such as IntelTechniques can now provide the data scientists with the required data from the intelligence gathered from these tools.
You May Like to Read: