Will Hurd on the Threat of Kremlin Cyber Attacks

MICHAEL HOLMES: Well, as U.S. President Joe Biden joins the chorus of those calling for a war crimes trial against Vladimir Putin, Ukraine continues to unite an otherwise divided America. Former Republican congressman for Texas and CIA officer Will Hurd knows that division firsthand. He examines the state of American politics in his new book “American Reboot”. And he tells Walter Isaacson what the United States should do next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you. And Will Hurd, welcome to the show.

WILL HURD, AUTHOR, “AMERICAN REBOOT”: Thanks for having me on. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

ISAACSON: We wake up this morning to the horrible images of massacres that have happened on the outskirts of Kyiv as the Russians withdrew. As a former CIA operative, do you think that was a deliberate tactic ordered by Vladimir Putin?

HURD: 100 percent it is. This is part of the order of war for the Russians, to strike fear in the hearts of the communities that they’re targeting. And they want those images through the rest of Ukraine to be seen so that people are afraid when forces start getting closer to those cities and those communities. Sometimes we put our Western values as a frame of how Vladimir Putin’s going to operate, and that’s not the case, right? This is about — you know, I’ve been telling people that the Russians, on a scale of one to 10, they’re probably out of five with the amount of death and destruction that they’re able to level. You now, what we saw in Mariupol can happen in other cities. And that’s why I’m of the opinion that the United States should be giving all the kind of weaponry that the Ukrainians are asking for, that we should be giving that to them. Because the longer this conflict goes on, the more pressure you’re going to see on the Eastern European countries. The pressure is because we have communities living under the threat of war, the impact of sanctions on their economies, and then a growing humanitarian crisis because of the number of Ukrainians and Belarusians that are fleeing their homeland. And the more pressure those governments have to deal with those things, then you’re going to potentially start seeing fractures within the western alliance. I mean, that’s — that plays in the hands of Vladimir Putin. And for me, you know, as I’ve written in the — in my book, we have a very simple philosophy when it comes to what we should be doing in foreign affairs. Our friends should love us and our enemies should fear us. And this is one of those examples where you have — that Ukrainians asking for more. And then you have the Russians not being afraid of us doing anything. And that’s not a very good place to be.

ISAACSON: President Biden said a week or two ago, for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power. And a lot of people thought that was a gaffe. Do you think he was right?

HURD: I think he was right. But also, when you’re President of the United States, you have to be careful about the things that you say because that caused all of our allies to say, hey, is there a change in U.S. policy towards Ukraine? And that phrase is going to be used by the Russians to promote within Russia. No Russian citizen wants anybody else telling them who their leader should be, even if they dislike Vladimir Putin. And so, that goes into the information operations that Vladimir Putin is going to be using in order to try to control his country. Putin has two goals. Goal one, stay in power, until he dies. Goal two, reestablish a territorial integrity of the USSR. And one of the ways he does that is by using information operations, which the Russians have been perfecting for 40 years in order to make his population think that he’s doing, you know, one thing when in reality he’s doing something else. The Russians are first class when it comes to using information operations, and we have to be mindful of that so that we have to be fighting in that domain of warfare as well.

ISAACSON: Yes, but you’ve said that Russia will not change — will not change unless there’s a radically new form of leadership that rejects Putin’s authoritarianism. How possible do you think that is?

HURD: It’s going to be hard. It’s going to be hard and it’s ultimately going to take time. Because the reality is, there’s probably four or five people in Russia that have any impact and any influence over Vladimir Putin. One of them is the current head of the FSB, which is the successor organization of the KGB. And the leader of that FSB has been in that position for a couple of decades. And you saw, I think it was last week or two weeks ago where the — they arrested — Russian police arrested a number of people within the FSB. Now, these were more — they — these weren’t the senior most folks, but it’s a sign that the head of the FSB and Vladimir Putin are still in cahoots. And so, we need to make sure that we’re continuing to beam real information into Russia. You know, Russian — Russia — sometimes we think Russia is like North Korea where they have zero information coming in. Russians are traveling around the world. They’re seeing things, and we need to make sure that they’re understanding what’s really going on in their country. There’s an effort to have more VPNs, virtual private networks, so people can have access to the real internet, not just the Russian-controlled internet so we can get more information. We need to be supporting journalists in Russia that are actually talking about what’s really going on. This is not going to be an easy thing. But Vladimir Putin is committing atrocities. I do believe he’s committing a genocide in Ukraine, and we need to try to be doing everything we can to stop him.

ISAACSON: When President Trump made the phone call to Zelenskyy and was talking about maybe holding off sending more weapons until President Zelenskyy investigated the Biden family, you were a Republican congressman. You looked into that. You ended up not voting for the Article of Impeachment on that. In retrospect, tell me what you think of that and how problematic it was?

HURD: Oh, I always said it was bungling foreign policy, and it shouldn’t have happened. But the issue at — during the impeachment, was whether that was extortion. And the preconditions of extortion didn’t exist. And for me, the level and the bar of impeachment was a violation of the law. I go into a long story in the book about how my opinions on impeachment was actually formed during the Obama Administration. Because during Republican primaries — Republican primary voters wanted us to impeach Barack Obama. And it was like, what for? And that’s where my opinion in my frame on how to evaluate impeachment came.

ISAACSON: Wait a minute. You’re not trying to make an equivalence of anything that Obama was accused of to the things Trump was accused of?

HURD: No, I’m just using that as an example of when my opinion of impeachment came in, like what — because there’s actually 535 different opinions on when impeachment actually is. And I’m saying, mine is a violence of law. When it came to the Zelenskyy phone call, the issue at hand was whether it was extortion. And those issues didn’t exist for extortion. But that decision to try to withhold support to the Ukrainians was a terrible — was a terrible decision, and it shouldn’t have been even — we should have been giving more weapons back then. I’ve been saying the same thing for — since 2015 that we should be giving the Ukrainians more because here’s what we’ve seen the Russians do leading up to this. They’ve been perfecting cyberattacks in Ukraine. They’ve been using drones in how to — you know, use drones on the battlefield. They were using Eastern Donbas as a proving ground for tactics, techniques and procedures. Many of which we saw them use in, you know, export into places like Syria, and we’re seeing them ultimately used now. And this is where I would say, congress actually did work when — under the Obama Administration, when the Obama Administration didn’t want to give weapons and javelins to Ukraine, congress in a bipartisan way said, we should. When Donald Trump tried to do the same thing, congress in a bipartisan way said, we should be supporting Ukraine. So, this is one of those things that congress actually understands what’s going on there and has the Ukrainian’s backs.

ISAACSON: You — since you’ve left congress and have become an expert in cybersecurity or a consultant working in the field of cybersecurity. “The Texas Tribune” reports that some cyberattacks have happened on infrastructure. But to me, the curious thing is a dog that hasn’t barked in the night yet. We haven’t seen a whole lot of attacks, cyberattacks. Why is that, or am I mistaken?

HURD: I think this administration has done a really good job when it comes to cybersecurity. Back in early December the organization responsible for – – within the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for defending civilian infrastructure had been working with, you know, energy providers, with all kind of critical infrastructure providers to say, hey, you know, we — if this conflict escalates, you may be a target. They’ve improved sharing of intelligence. And so, there has been a level of preparation that I think, you know, prior to the Russians invading Ukraine. And so, I think that’s been a huge factor. Also, I think the Russian’s game plan has changed significantly. And when you’re unable to have the kind of successes on the battlefield that you think you can have, you have to start spending a lot of time, energy, and attention on those type of activities, rather than doing something that may potentially disrupt somebody’s support to the person that you’re fighting. Ultimately, Russian attacks in the United States would be to sow discord and distrust and erode trust in our institutions to prevent us from helping the Ukrainians or to prevent us from doing more and rallying the Western alliance. And so, things aren’t going well for them. So, I don’t think they’ve been able to get to some of those operations. But they still can.

ISAACSON: In your wonderful book, the new book that just came out. There are two different chapters, one, as you said, about making sure we’re friendly with our allies. That we really support our allies, that’s a key part of foreign policy. And the second chapter about how tough we have to be on our enemies. But I noticed in those two chapters, you don’t have China in either one. What do you think about China? And how we’re supposed to deal with them now, especially, when we need them, perhaps, if we’re going to put sanctions on Russia?

HURD: Well, look, I believe that — we talk about a new cold war with Russia. The new cold war is actually the Chinese government. And I say that because the Chinese government is trying to surpass the United States as the global superpower. This is not my opinion. This is not my — you know, from my time in the CIA collecting intelligence. This is what the Chinese government has said about themselves in English, and they’re going to do it by being the global leader in a number of advanced technologies, like 5G, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonic space, there’s about 12 or 14 areas. Now —

ISAACSON: But wait, why do you call that a cold war? Why isn’t that just a competition like businesses compete —

HURD: Sure.

ISAACSON: — and shouldn’t we be competing in a — it’s not a zero-sum game.

HURD: 100 percent. And I think we can compete. You know, I’m going to always take, you know, freedom and openness and the entrepreneurship of America over an authoritarian government. However, if you’re going compete, you’ve got to play by the rules that have been agreed to. You know, if China wants to be a member of the World Trade Organization, then you need to abide by the rules of the World Trade Organization. You know, stealing technology and using it to perfect your own, attracting U.S. businesses into China, and then in essence, nationalizing them. You know, these are some of the behaviors and the antics that we’ve seen from the Chinese government. Ultimately —

ISAACSON: But doesn’t all of that pale totally in comparison to what Russia is doing, and don’t we need to have a better alliance with China if we’re going to repel what Russia is doing? What goes way beyond stealing technology is going to genocide and massacre.

HURD: Look, I’m not saying one is better than the other. In a perfect world, working with the Chinese on dealing with Russia would be excellent. The fact that, you know, one of the things under the last administration was working with China on North Korea. You know, that shows a — there is a model on how we can potentially work with the Chinese on some of these global issues. But the Chinese government has got to be interested in doing those things. I do believe that the U.S. and China should coexist. The difference between us and China than with us and Russia, our economies, our cultures are way more intertwined than it ever was — than the U.S. and the Soviet Union was, and then the U.S. and Russia is. And so, we should be working together on some things, competing on others. But the rule — but they — we need to be following the rules of the road, right? And that is — that is where if the Chinese government shows a willingness to do that, then that is great. But ultimately, this is a competition.

ISAACSON: In your book, you say we have a need for an American reboot, and you call yourself a pragmatic idealist. Explain why we need a reboot.

HURD: For me, we have these major generational defining challenges that I outline in the book, and we’ve talked a little bit about here today. But the problem is, our political system is getting in the way from preventing us from getting big things done. We’re at a point where it’s 72 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and that is something that has been growing over the last couple of years. And part of that is because of our political systems. Now, too many political choices are made in a primary, which means elected officials only appeal to a very — to the extremes rather than the middle. Almost two to six percent of the population, which is not a lot of folks, and we also have too many elected leaders that are interested in fear mongering rather than inspiring.

ISAACSON: In your book, I want to do a quote, you say, “The party of empowerment and opportunity systematically attempts to disenfranchise voters who are poor and nonwhite.” You talk about the party, that’s your party —

HURD: Correct.

ISAACSON: — the Republican Party. And the disenfranchised, that you were one of the few black Republicans in congress over the course of the past, you know, couple of decades. Tell me about this notion that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise people, and what do you say to your own party about that?

HURD: Well, look, and — there are some Republicans that are going to do that, there are some that are not, that are trying to fight it, right? And so, here is my opinion. We should be increasing the ability to vote. We should be increasing access to the vote. We should — you know, we should be able to register online. You should be able to register a day of. Let’s make it easier for — I — look, if Estonia, who is on the border with Russia, who is worried about a Russian invasion, physical invasion, as well as a digital invasion, if they can vote online, we should be able to figure out how to do that here in the United States. So, more people voting, the better. And — but I also talked about how the Republican Party needs to start reflecting the rest of the country. Here’s what’s going to happen in 2022, you’re going to see Republicans are likely to take back the House. It’s almost an accepted, you know, likelihood. Probably going to take back the senate. You’re actually going to see the number of elected officials from the Republican Party be more diverse than it ever has been before. Look, I’m a black Republican. I got elected in a 71 percent Latino district. Nobody thought I had a chance. When I did win, nobody thought I would get reelected. How did I win? I went to — I showed up to communities that had never seen someone before and talked about the things that they care about. And when we do that, we can ultimately be successful.

ISAACSON: You talk about the need to appeal to basic American values rather than the fringes. If you thought that running for president, as a Republican, could possibly help that cause, would you consider doing it in 2024?

HURD: I would evaluate if it — because for me, the opportunity to help my country and get us beyond this moment, then of course I would evaluate whether that’s something I should do or not. I’ve been lucky to have served my country in a number of different ways. Being an undercover officer in the CIA, recruiting spies and stealing secrets in dangerous places and exotic places all over the world was awesome. Working on the most important national security issues of the day, serving in congress in one of the largest districts in the country, and helping people battle the bureaucracy who needed help battle was great. And now, working with companies that are, you know, going to be instrumental in partnering with the government in order to address many of these challenges is — has been great. And so, for me, I’m — you know, I’m 44 years old. And if the opportunity to serve makes sense, then, yes, it’s something I would evaluate.

ISAACSON: Will Hurd, as always, thank you so much for joining us.

HURD: My pleasure.