It could also just be done as a thinly veiled threat to discourage people from working there. Even if nobody is arrested, the statement is basically saying "it doesn't matter where you are, or how secretive your work is, we can find you". I can imagine spouses and family would suggest they start looking for a different job after seeing the announcment.

Indeed. And as GP said. If you force your adversary to take more precautions you're driving up the cost, increase the time it takes for them to perform operations, makes them need more experienced/educated personnel, more procedures to catch mistakes, etc. etc.

That's not a bad thing for Russia's adversaries.

It also means that they can't visit countries with an extradition treaty with the U.S. This is not the biggest penalty ever but it's something.

And it's even more of 'something' when you're in a country with a questionable economy and future.

I'd have to think if you're an adequately-compensated-but-not-connected person in Russia, you'd be keeping a Plan B in your back pocket "just in case".

Also assets, interests, and possibly more.

It's basically, "good luck taking the wife & kids on holiday outside of Russia!"

Or investments, purchases, business opportunities, ...

@dx87: “It could also just be done as a thinly veiled threat to discourage people from working there”

Yea, those damn Ruskies are so stupid they left their name and home address in the compiled files.

Not far off from that, it seems:

https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1318277154908536833

@green_rooster: “Not far off from that, it seems:”

Ни черта не умеют!

But this is only six people. I'm sure they have hundreds or thousands of people working on "the America project" at the GRU.

We nailed 6 of them. So what? Foreign intelligence agencies weed out a CIA spy every now and then, but that doesn't seem to deter the CIA.

Honestly, having worked for large companies, it's astonishing how few people are working on any given project. It's normally a handful of people actively contributing to any given specific project.

Similar in ways to a burn notice:

an official statement issued by an intelligence agency to other agencies. It states that an asset or intelligence source is unreliable for one or several reasons, often fabrication, and must be officially disavowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_notice_(document)

And yes, the video series of the same name is based on the concept.

Here it's effectively a reputational attack which renders its target only viable to, and therefore beholden to, the initiating actor for whom the work/activity triggering the notice was performed.

The notice also tips the issueing agency's hand as to surveillence and intelligence capabilities, and puts on notice others performing similar work, both specifically referenced by USDoJ.

A key aspect of much (not all) state-actor covert ops is impunity. This may be actual legal immunity (e.g., diplomatic cover), or simply the threats of national-level retaliation (across a wide range: sanctions, diplomatic, treaty, counterespionage or ops, military, international courts, UN or other internattional entity sanctions). The impunity is strong but not absolute.

The US DoJ's indictment has little power inside Russia, at least under that country's present leadership, but has significant import elsewhere, including outside the US, or under a possible future Russian government. Say, perhaps, one lead by targets of the present leadership.

That is not always the case that there is no legal accountability:

https://europeangaming.eu/portal/latest-news/2018/09/11/2789...

In case you would like to know more about this kind of things check this: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/76/

The real issue with these indictments is that they put US operators in a tough position. These are military hackers following lawful orders. We are not dealing with criminal acts, but diplomatic issues.

Foreign powers are more than capable of identifying individual US operators, but so far they've opted to not participate in this game.

Here's an op-ed on the subject by an ex-NSA hacker https://www.thedailybeast.com/dont-punish-a-north-korean-hac...

It's a dicey situation. That said, Jake's not being completely truthful about the risks here. The office he worked in (TAO and Specifically the ROC), was a volunteer office, and it was made clear what your actions could lead to. Future travel restrictions and concerns were brought up for this exact reason, just as anyone working field work is given the explanation. In a more basic awareness, simply working a position that is cleared, has you go through plenty of discussions / classes / onboarding videos, that discuss the risks.

At the end of the day, he has to accept that he is accountable for his action as should others, it comes with the job.

I'm more concerned with how candid Jake is (as are most of is former co-workers), but that's another story for another day and not really related here...

Then the foreign powers should declare war and they'll be subject to the Geneva convention. Covert action that is illegal in the target country has always made operatives subject to the local laws. If you want to be treated like a soldier, wear a uniform and fight in a declared war. Otherwise you're subject to the rules for spies.

@cameldrv: “Then the foreign powers should declare war and they'll be subject to the Geneva convention”

Question: Which military power has threatened to bomb the International Criminal Court in the Hague, if its military are brought before the court. a) The Russian Federation or b) The United States of America.

* and the answer is ‘b’

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

I don't see the relevance here. If you do something that's illegal in the U.S., don't go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S. The only exception is war. If your country invades the U.S., and you are a normal soldier and shoot some people, if you're captured you'll be treated as a prisoner of war and released when the war is over.

If you covertly come to the U.S. and shoot some people, you'll be put on trial, convicted, and then imprisoned or executed. If the other side has someone to trade for you, you might get released. This is how spying works.

The ICC hasn't been given any power by the United States (nor by Russia or China). If US _military_ personnel were brought there, it's obviously going to have a diplomatic/military response. It would be be an act of aggression.

I am much more confused by another point: isn’t the GRU a military department? Can you charge military personnel with a crime like this when they are acting in accordance with their orders?

It feels like this is a cop out: the US knows that it is the Russian government that’s responsible but charges individual officers so as to not cause any kind of international stir.

Even if these six were tried and convicted and sent to prison, nothing would change since I’m sure there are others who could take their place. The directive won’t change, just the people carrying it out.

Yes, because they aren't performing traditional military operations. They were performing espionage and sabotage. The United States would prosecute these Russian military members if they were caught doing the same actions inside the US

The US federal government has already imposed a wide range of sanctions on Russia. What other tangible consequences are you asking for?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=IF1...

When a person commits a crime and is punished, we don't say "they were already punished, what more are you asking for?" When they go on to commit yet another crime.

So what I'm asking for should be obvious: Additional sanctions for each additional hostile act. Keep making it harder and harder, the consequences higher, each time. Use diplomacy with our allies to get them to do the same.

Which sanctions specifically? Is there evidence that additional sanctions would have any effect?

>I also wonder if making these public, detrimental and unnecessary, is just a cynical ploy before an election to give the appearance that this administration has been tough on Russia, when actual toughness on Russia would mean not just indictments, but also sanctions and other tangible consequences.

Honestly, I don't mind cynical ploys as much if they involve an agency doing it's usual job. They might be trying to deflect attention or obscure underlying biases, but conducting an investigation and officially making an announcement based on the facts is a good thing. If only more "October surprises" were like this.

I agree, even if it's driven by cynicism, if it's the right thing to do then it's what should be done.

Given there's never a trial, you never find out if the charges are true either.

A PR indictment of this sort accomplishes nothing besides making the DOJ look even more foolish or amateurish. The only thing interesting is to figure out whom it is supposed benefit.

If anyone were to actually show up to face these charges, they will eventually be dismissed, as happened to two of the Mueller indictees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-...

To quote:

With the case set to go to trial next month, prosecutors recommended that the Justice Department drop the charges to preserve national security interests and prevent Russia from weaponizing delicate American law enforcement information, according to the official. The prosecutors also weighed the benefits of securing a guilty verdict against the companies, which cannot be meaningfully punished in the United States, against the risk of exposing national security secrets in order to win in court.

Mentioning that those charges were dismissed without providing the reason or context seems rather incomplete, at best.

(That's what the link is for)

That they later dismiss the case strongly suggests that they never thought it would be prosecuted in the first place. Do you really believe that they thought there would be no discovery?