Well, howdy there internet people? It's Bell again. Today we're going to talk about

Russia, rhetoric, the tools of foreign policy, and how the policy makers view them.

There's a common viewpoint of foreign policy that should

probably be explored. One of the recent talking points worldwide is that Putin was

sending a message to his intelligence assets with the recent swap.

He was telling them that we will bring you home and that in the future that will make them

more likely to carry out their orders.

It's an interesting idea and acute theory, but does it hold water?

There are several assumptions baked in here that need to be explored. First is the idea that

Russian intelligence assets weren't already motivated to carry out their orders or

that others in the field aren't sufficiently motivated or that they feel they could disobey their orders.

How do we think they wound up in custody in the first place?

They weren't there for singing too loud in the choir.

The other thing is an ongoing joke amongst intelligence assets. The joke is that

the word asset is really two words because policy makers take their rear and set it where they want it.

They're expendable and they know it. They don't need additional motivation. They are self-motivated, usually driven by an extremely personal drive.

The Intelligence Brass don't actually want them to follow orders no matter what and take additional

risks. That gets them caught and leads to the possibility of them being turned, jeopardizing

means and methods.

The second assumption is that Russian policy makers and intelligence brass care about the feelings

of their intelligence assets. They don't. Intelligence assets. the Sure, they'd like to get them back, but it isn't because they have a particular attachment to them.

It's so they can sit for a debrief about the interrogation process they underwent when they were caught.

...