Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume IV, Soviet Union, January 1983–March 1985

231. Information Memorandum From the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (Kelly) and the Director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (Montgomery) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, June 27, 1984

SUBJECT

• CIA Study of Indicators of Increased Soviet Aggressiveness

Bill Casey has sent to the President, yourself and other senior members of the National Security Council a study (attached) entitled “US/Soviet Tension,” which he characterizes in his cover note as “a rather stunning array of indicators of an increasing aggressiveness in Soviet policy and activities.” We have serious reservations about the tone and methodology of this CIA paper.² The study itself is essentially a shotgun listing of reports on various Soviet activities in the political, propaganda, commercial, internal security and military fields which taken together, are read as perhaps suggestive of a coherent Soviet decision to move from “civilian to wartime-type” activity. Citing “the increasing number and accelerating tempo of developments of this type,” Casey says the CIA will begin to produce a biweekly strategic warning report of a similar nature.

In past weeks a Special National Intelligence Estimate (SNIE–11–10–84 JX) examined recent Soviet political and military activities in light of their possible perceptions of an increased U.S. threat.³ It concluded that each Soviet action could be sufficiently explained by its own military or political rationale and was consistent with larger policies of developing military readiness over the longer term or conveying a “tougher” public posture vis-a-vis the U.S. in the post-INF deployment environment. This new CIA paper readily admits those points, but raises the question whether they may also represent coordinated preparation on the part of the Soviets for a major East-West crisis—presumably at their instigation.

The CIA paper flags a useful cautionary note and one which we have tried to be sensitive to in our own ongoing assessments of Soviet activity. It is important in the current state of relations that we remain especially alert and continue to pay careful attention not just to immediate and specific events, but to the underlying patterns of Soviet behaviour as well.

We too noted earlier this year that the Soviets have apparently chosen to project a somewhat more assertive “Don’t Tread on Me” posture in response to their INF embarrassment. Some of their more consciously visible naval deployments and pressures in the Berlin area, for instance, seem at a minimum designed to remind the West of Soviet power and its potential. Along with recent examples of ongoing modernization of the Soviet military in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, they are also consistent with increased Soviet concern over growth in our own military capabilities.

However, that being said, we believe there are serious problems with this CIA paper. The analysis is neither systematic nor sophisticated. In some instances, there are obvious misstatements of fact (the study incorrectly claims, for instance, that the Soviets have recently cancelled long-standing commercial accords with us when almost the opposite is the case).

In other areas, individual reports are misinterpreted or out of context (the non-use of military trucks in the grain harvest in a single Soviet republic cited by the study, for instance, seems more related to institutional economic shifts than to preparations for significant military purposes; similarly, it is hard to stretch local Soviet complaints about publicity concerning the April attack on our consul in Leningrad as a serious indicator). There seems to be relatively little discrimination in assessing the relative import of particular Soviet actions and no attention given to evidence contrary to the study’s general thesis.

In sum, we do not believe that careful examination of the evidence available supports the sort of breathless warning that the paper’s apparent conclusions or Casey’s cover note convey.

We are especially concerned that this report will create a greater sense of impending danger among its high-level readers around town than the facts warrant. By mixing a variety of tenuous pieces of evidence and questionable assertions with significant indicators of Soviet strategic intentions, the study risks devaluing the concept of warning indicators. It makes it that less likely we can correctly assess such indicators if we begin to pick up signs of something truly ominous.

It may be useful for you to mention our concerns in your next meeting with Bill Casey. You might want to note in particular that:

—We welcome the idea of approaching the study of Soviet strategic warning indicators on a more systematic and rigorous basis and believe such a regular exercise can play a useful role.

—However, we have carefully reviewed the June 19th study of “US/Soviet Tension” and have serious problems with some of its analysis and conclusions. We believe it is slanted too much towards reaching a conclusion of increased Soviet aggressiveness than the evidence warrants.

—The Soviets have been trying to encourage divisions in the West, in part by seeking to scare people about the state of East-West relations, and we do not want to play their game. Should this piece reach the press, it would do more harm to our policies in Western Europe than several months worth of Soviet propaganda.

1. Source: Department of State, Executive Secretariat, S/S, Sensitive and Super Sensitive Documents, Lot 92D52, June 1–30, 1984 Super Sensitive Documents. Secret; Sensitive; Wnintel. Drafted by Dunkerley; cleared by Martens, Simons, Palmer, J. Mayhew (INR/SEE), M. Mautner (INR/SEE), J. Danlyk (INR/CE), D. Howells (INR/PMA), and N. Bellochi (INR). An unknown hand initialed for all clearing officials. Forwarded through Armacost. McKinley’s handwritten initials are at the top of the memorandum, indicating he saw it on June 28. A stamped notation reading “GPS” appears on the memorandum, indicating Shultz saw it. Shultz circled Montgomery’s name in the “FROM” line and drew a line to his handwritten note in the margin: “INR: Pls prepare a careful ltr from me to Casey stating our concerns. Clear EUR. GPS.”
2. See Document 229. In his memoir, Shultz recalled: “Toward the end of June, the CIA produced a shotgun listing of reports citing increased Soviet aggressiveness in the political, propaganda, commercial, internal security, and military arenas. The CIA suggested a Soviet decision to move from civilian-to wartime-type activity, which could easily be read as a prediction of war. I told CIA director Bill Casey that I had problems with the report. It was a sloppy piece of work and more alarmist than the facts warranted. It appeared to be straining toward a conclusion of heightened Soviet aggressiveness. I pointed out to Casey that the Soviets had been trying to encourage divisions in the West, in part by seeking to scare people about the state of East-West relations. ‘We do not want to play their game,’ I told Casey. ‘Should this piece reach the press, it would do more harm to our policies in Western Europe than several months of Soviet propaganda.’” (Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph, p. 476)
3. See Document 221.