Good morning,

This is the Thursday edition of The Intel Brief. Let’s review some important updates from this week.

If you have any comments or concerns, email me any time: [email protected] 

Reporting Period: 17-20 February 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

U.S. And Russian Officials Meet In Saudi Arabia

Summary
On 18 February, U.S. and Russian officials met in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The diplomats discussed organizing Ukraine peace negotiations and the core components behind Russo-American diplomacy.

Findings

• Riyadh Meeting: On 18 February, U.S. and Russian officials held a 4-and-a-half-hour-long meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss how to set conditions for Ukraine peace negotiations.
  Coverage suggests the meeting was more of a re-establishment of bilateral relations between the U.S. and Russia and less of a peace negotiation session. The parties agreed to pursue renewing embassies, conditions for ending the war in Ukraine, and creative incentives for mutual economic investment.

  The U.S. team:

  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio

  • National Security Advisor Mike Waltz

  • U.S. Envoy Steve Witkoff

  Speaking of the historic opportunity ahead of us, Marco Rubio had this to say:

• Warning: Retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane stated that Putin is unlikely to give up his long-term goal of seizing Ukraine. Keane believes Putin will strike a deal, wait for Trump to leave office, and attempt to “topple the government in Ukraine” by force and coercion.
  While unsubstantiated, it is uncertain how this likelihood changes if Moscow walks away from negotiations with a favorable deal (i.e. Ukrainian territories, no NATO expansion).

• Chinese Coercion: In Global Times publications, China has stated its support for “all efforts dedicated to peace in Ukraine, including the recent agreement reached by the United States and Russia to start peace talks.”
  When asked if China would send peacekeepers to Ukraine, the Foreign Minister stated that China does not comment on hypotheticals, but that China’s position on the Ukraine crisis “has always been fair.”
  There are concerns that negotiations — without Ukrainian or European representatives — will favor Russian interests and embolden China in its pursuit of Taiwan.

• EU Commission: On 17 February, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met with U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russian Keith Kellogg. The two discussed Europe’s plans to grow its defense spending and production. The EU Commission has committed $145 billion to Ukraine’s security alongside the United States’ $52 billion in military assistance.

• NATO Secretary General: In a 17 February interview with Fox News, Mark Rutte stated he has “great trust” in the American-Russian talks in Riyadh despite a lack of EU or Ukrainian representatives being present.
  Rutte previously pressured EU leaders to contribute security, economic, and diplomatic recommendations and commitments relating to peace negotiations before asking for a seat at the table.
  Rutte also stated that it is his “absolute understanding” that Ukraine will have a place in negotiations when they formally begin and seem achievable.

• U.S. Demarche to EU: On 16 February, Reuters reported that the United States had sent a “diplomatic demarche” to the EU, indicating the U.S. is strongly considering EU interests in talks with Russia. The inquiry asked EU states what considerations they deem relevant to negotiations. It also asked which countries would consider sending a peacekeeping force to Ukraine, indicating the U.S. does not necessarily favor Russian interests.

Why This Matters
Despite coverage suggesting Trump’s team is making progress on negotiations — and shunning Europe and Ukraine while doing so — Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated Russia will not accept NATO troops in Ukraine, indicating significant, high-level disagreements persist. Despite conflicting rhetoric, on 18 February the Kremlin reaffirmed it is “serious” about reaching a peace settlement.

In my opinion, Trump and his team are taking flak for negotiations regarding Ukraine, but I don’t even think much progress is being made there. Instead, a more critical development appears to be the rebuilding of bilateral relations, a process likely catalyzed by Senator Marco Rubio’s meeting with Lavrov in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Any peace deal will require Ukraine’s endorsement and compliance, necessitating its presence in negotiations—a point repeatedly emphasized by both U.S. and NATO officials. This raises questions about how any backchannel diplomacy between Washington and Moscow could meaningfully progress without Kyiv’s involvement.

There may be an emerging shift in U.S. foreign policy due to a changing worldview by advisors close to Trump and his team. Trump is not known for deep strategic theorizing but is likely influenced by advisors shaped by the Soviet and post-Soviet eras. This shift could reflect a more realist understanding of Russia’s security concerns, acknowledging that Western policies—particularly NATO expansion—have pressured Moscow into adopting aggressive postures along its periphery. While not entirely substantiated, this is Russia’s view.

Given this perspective, some within Trump’s circle may see improved U.S.-Russia relations as a necessity for maintaining American global dominance through the 21st century and beyond. A stronger U.S.-Russia relationship could serve as a counterweight to Moscow’s growing ties with China, North Korea, and Iran—a bloc of authoritarian, multipolar adversaries — should a peace deal remain upheld, reestablish a lasting peace in Europe, and reopen doors to diplomacy and partnerships. The key point here is that Russia will outlast Putin, making a long-term recalibration of U.S. strategy toward Moscow a potentially pragmatic move.

If Trump is actively working to revive U.S.-Russia diplomacy, how could this affect America’s relationship with Europe and future Ukraine negotiations? It is possible that Trump, in seeking greater Russian economic and strategic flexibility, is offering Moscow a fast-tracked and favorable resolution to the war. This could reshape transatlantic ties by weakening Europe’s influence in post-war settlements and recalibrating Washington’s priorities away from NATO-centric approaches. Ongoing concerns are that this is a fundamental shift in U.S. global strategy, marked by Trump prioritizing direct engagement with Russia over maintaining the unified Western alliance.

Sources: AP News, CBS News, The Hill, Global Times, Global Times, EU Commission, Fox News, Reuters, U.S. Department of State

Russia Establishes New Hybrid Warfare Intelligence Unit

Summary
This week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia has merged its hybrid warfare intelligence services into one unit. Previously, Russian agents were dispersed across various units and organizations. Now, the SSD will oversee all Russian hybrid warfare schemes, such as assassinations, sabotage, and recruitment.

Findings

• Department of Special Tasks (SSD): The Wall Street Journal reports that “Western intelligence officials” have stated the Department of Special Tasks is headquartered in the same building as Russia’s Military Intelligence (GRU). The article claims that SSD is responsible for a spree of sabotage, attempted killings, and placing incendiary devices on planes in 2024.
  The SSD was established in 2023 due to American and NATO support for Ukraine.

• Previous Unit: In 2019, the GRU was linked to a shadowy group known as Unit 29155. The GRU unit was previously linked to various foreign assassinations and other destabilization activities across Europe. It is uncertain if the Department of Special Tasks has absorbed this mysterious unit, but WSJ suggests so.

• Mission Set: The SSD has three core missions.

  • Overseas assassinations and sabotage

  • Infiltration of Western companies, schools, and organizations

  • Recruitment of foreign agents

Why This Matters
This is a significant development that may have slipped through your typical news feed.

By redistributing personnel and assets to the SSD — and establishing that specific mission set — indications suggest Russia is very likely to carry out a hybrid warfare campaign against Ukraine and European NATO member states regardless of the conditions established in a possible peace deal.

In other words, while the conventional conflict in Ukraine may soon come to an end, we are likely to enter a period of increased “gray zone” activity by Russia, both as retribution and to carry out a long-term strategy of destabilizing and weakening its enemies.

It is uncertain if Trump’s team will address this development in future dialogue with their Russian counterparts, but it would be in the U.S. interest to mitigate Russia’s desire and ability to perpetrate such activities.

Sources: WSJ, Ukrainska Pravda

Iran Vows To Strike Israel Following Rubio, Netanyahu Meeting

Summary
Marco Rubio recently visited Netanyahu in Jerusalem. The pair discussed the war in Gaza, Trump’s reconstruction plan, future ceasefires, and the Iran crisis. Iran responded, vowing to strike Israel and claiming the U.S. and Israel would never degrade or dismantle Tehran’s nuclear program.

Findings

• Rubio Meets With Netanyahu: On 16 February, Secretary of State Rubio met with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Following their meeting, Netanyahu stated that Israel and the U.S. stand together in “countering the threat of Iran.”
  Rubio called Iran the “single greatest source of instability” in the Middle East and the force “behind every terrorist group.”

• Gaza Plan: Rubio said he supports Trump’s “bold” plan to occupy Gaza and oversee its reconstruction, a plan that includes the resettlement of Palestinians.
  Netanyahu called Trump’s plan the “only viable plan to enable a different future” as Israel attempts to “eradicate” Hamas.

• Iran’s Response: On 17 February, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) commander stated that Iran would conduct a third direct attack on Israel soon. The promised strike is being called “Operation True Promise 3.”
  Iran previously launched missile attacks on Israel in April and October 2024.
  Similarly, a spokesperson for Iran’s foreign minister stated Israel and the U.S. “cannot do a damn thing” to sidetrack or upend Iran’s nuclear program.

Why This Matters
Previously, there was hope that Trump’s team (likely to be led by Steve Witkoff) would be able to expand diplomatic dialogue with Tehran and get the Khamenei regime to enter formal negotiations to suspend or dismantle its nuclear program.

Now, with the announcement of a plan to occupy, rebuild, and resettle the populace of Gaza, Iran seems intent on carrying on its Islamic crusade against the U.S. and Israel. When assessing the likelihood of strikes on Iranian facilities, let’s remember a few key facts:

• Iran violated IAEA nuclear inspections (across more than a decade)

• Trump has vowed a “maximum pressure campaign” on Iran

• Trump has not taken the use of force “off the table”

• The U.S. Intelligence Community recently warned Israel may carry out strikes in 2025

• Iran has vowed a third wave of attacks on Israel

The data would suggest that negotiations will not happen soon and that Israel and the U.S. may soon begin to plan a strike package against Iran.

Sources: Fox News, Iran International, Reuters, PBS, NBC News, The Defense Post

U.S. Abandons CCP Sovereignty Rhetoric

Summary
Last week, a Taiwan-United States fact sheet published by the U.S. State Department was updated to remove verbiage relating to Taiwan’s independence.

Findings

• Editing: The fact sheet was updated to remove a statement saying the U.S. opposes “any unilateral change to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.”

• Legislation: Currently there is a concurrent resolution in Congress that, if approved, would require the United States to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty and abandon the “One China” principle.

• Implications: The refinement of U.S. rhetoric on Taiwan indicates two things:

  • The CCP is not the rightful ruler of Taiwan.

  • The U.S. fully intends to intervene with military action if China pursues a forceful seizure of Taiwan.

• China’s Response: The CCP has launched a public relations offensive condemning the American “mistake” and stating Washington has “gravely backpedaled.”
  China’s official stance on Taiwan is that President Lai and his supporters are a separatist faction and a direct threat to Chinese sovereignty. Xi Jinping has tasked the PLA with the forceful seizure of Taiwan as early as 2027.

Why This Matters
I think in principle, this was done to agitate Xi’s regime and embolden the Taiwanese government as Trump engages in managing trade and tariffs. As we are seeing with most of Trump’s decisions and rhetoric, it is intended to gain attention and incite action.

However, there are other implications.

• Implications: The refinement of U.S. rhetoric on Taiwan indicates two things:

  • The CCP is not the rightful ruler of Taiwan.

  • The U.S. fully intends to intervene with military action if China pursues a forceful seizure of Taiwan.

This is a significant departure from the Biden administration’s vague and ambiguous stance on Taiwan. It is also significant considering recent reporting that suggests a growing majority of UN members support the “One China” principle…

Sources: The Intel Brief, BBC, Global News, Yahoo, Focus Taiwan

End Brief

That concludes this Thursday brief. I hope you learned something.

Do me a favor? Forward this newsletter to a friend or colleague who would enjoy it!

See you Sunday,

Nick