Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and
November 15, 2021
Issues for Congress
Andrew S. Bowen
Following Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and invasion of eastern Ukraine in
Analyst in Russian and
2014, many observers have linked Russia to additional malicious acts abroad. U.S. and European
European Affairs
officials and analysts have accused Russia of, among other things, interfering in U.S. elections in

2016; attempting a coup in Montenegro in 2016; conducting cyberattacks against the World Anti-
Doping Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2016 and

2018, respectively; attempting to assassinate Russian intelligence defector Sergei Skripal in the
United Kingdom in 2018; and offering “bounties” to Taliban-linked fighters to attack U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
Implicated in all these activities is Russia’s military intelligence agency, the Main Directorate of the General Staff (GU), also
known as the GRU.
The United States has indicted GRU officers and designated the GRU for sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine, cybercrimes, and election interference. The Department of Justice has indicted GRU officers for cyber-related
offenses against the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, NotPetya
malware attacks in 2017, various cyberattacks against the 2018 Olympics, and interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The
GRU as an agency has been designated for sanctions under Executive Order 13694, as amended, and Section 224 of the
Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L. 115-44/H.R. 3364 Countering America’s
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act [CAATSA], Title II).
The GRU is a large, expansive organization under the command of Russia’s Ministry of Defense and Defense Minister
Sergei Shoigu. Headed since 2018 by Admiral Igor Kostyukov, the GRU plays an important role in Russia’s foreign and
national security policies. As an arm of the military, the GRU is responsible for all levels of military intelligence, from
tactical to strategic. The GRU commands Russia’s spetsnaz (special forces) brigades, which conduct battlefield
reconnaissance, raiding, and sabotage missions, in addition to training and overseeing local proxies or mercenary units.
Additionally, the GRU conducts traditional intelligence missions through the recruitment and collection of human, signals,
and electronic assets. Beyond its traditional combat- and intelligence-related roles, the GRU conducts extensive cyber,
disinformation, propaganda, and assassination operations. These operations are often aggressive and brazen, leading to
publicity and the exposure of GRU culpability.
Congress and the executive branch continue to consider responses and countermeasures to malicious Russian activities.
Because the GRU continues to conduct cyberattacks, election interference, assassinations, and disinformation, understanding
the agency’s structure and the position it occupies in Russian foreign and security policy can help identify what the GRU is
capable of and why it conducts particular operations. Understanding the GRU also offers insight into Russia’s wider use of
cyber, disinformation, and influence operations and can inform broader discussions of potential U.S. responses and
countermeasures.
This report addresses Russian military intelligence, including organizational structure and activities, and related U.S. policy.
For further background on Russia, see CRS Report R46761, Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations, by Andrew S.
Bowen and Cory Welt; CRS In Focus IF11718, Russian Cyber Units, by Andrew S. Bowen; CRS Report R46518, Russia:
Domestic Politics and Economy, by Cory Welt and Rebecca M. Nelson; CRS In Focus IF11625, Russian Armed Forces:
Military Doctrine and Strategy, by Andrew S. Bowen; CRS In Focus IF11589, Russian Armed Forces: Capabilities, by
Andrew S. Bowen; and CRS Report R45415, U.S. Sanctions on Russia, coordinated by Cory Welt.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 17 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 25 Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background and History .................................................................................................................. 2
Organizational Structure .................................................................................................................. 3
Relationship to Other Russian Intelligence Agencies ............................................................... 5
2008 Georgian War to Present Day ........................................................................................... 6
Intelligence Collection .................................................................................................................... 8
Spetsnaz ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Supervising Proxy Forces ....................................................................................................... 10
Assassinations and Targeted Attacks ........................................................................................ 11
Targeted Overseas Attacks Linked to GRU Since 2014: Role of Unit 29155 ................... 11
Cyberespionage and Disinformation Activities ............................................................................. 14
Unit 26165 ............................................................................................................................... 17
Unit 74455 ............................................................................................................................... 18
Unit 54777 ............................................................................................................................... 18
2016 Election Interference ...................................................................................................... 18
Recent Cyber Activities ........................................................................................................... 19
U.S. Policy Responses and Issues for Congress ............................................................................ 20
Outlook .................................................................................................................................... 22

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 22

Congressional Research Service

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
Russia’s military intelligence agency is a large, expansive, and powerful organization responsible
for the collection of foreign intelligence and the operation of Russia’s military special forces
(spetsnaz) units. Since 2010, its official title has been the Main Directorate (Glavnoye
upravleniye) of the General Staff, formally referred to in abbreviated form as the GU, although
commonly referred to as the GRU (Glavnoye razvedyvatel’noye upravleniye, or Main Intelligence
Directorate).1
Due to its operations and responsibilities, the GRU is one of the most well-known of Russia’s
intelligence agencies. It plays a large role in Russian foreign and security policy. By
understanding the GRU and its operations, Members of Congress may gain greater insight into
the conduct of Russian foreign and security policy, including the use of disinformation,
propaganda, and cyber strategies.
In recent years, reports have linked the GRU to some of Russia’s most aggressive and public
intelligence operations. Reportedly, the GRU played a key role in Russia’s occupation of
Ukraine’s Crimea region and invasion of eastern Ukraine, the attempted assassination of former
Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom (UK), interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential elections, disinformation and propaganda operations, and some of the world’s
most damaging cyberattacks. The GRU operates both as an intelligence agency, collecting human,
cyber, and signals intelligence, and as a military organization responsible for battlefield
reconnaissance and the operation of Russia’s main spetsnaz forces.2
Analysts note the GRU has a distinct organizational identity due to its dual status as an
intelligence and military organization. Additionally, from its inception, the GRU has competed
with other Russian security organs for resources and responsibilities. Other intelligence agencies
have continually sought to take over the GRU’s missions and responsibilities, leading to intense
competition and often a duplication of efforts. Analysts and researchers have noted that the
GRU’s unique organizational culture and competition with other agencies may factor into its
willingness to conduct aggressive and often reckless operations, as a way to justify the GRU’s
utility to Russia’s political leadership.3
This report focuses on the GRU’s origins, missions, documented or reported operations, and
related U.S. policy. It first addresses the GRU’s history and background to provide context for
understanding its organizational mindset and traditional responsibilities. It then examines the
GRU’s organizational structure; analyzes the GRU’s various missions, including intelligence
collection, control of spetsnaz units, and cyber capabilities and operations; and addresses related
U.S. policy and congressional action. The report concludes with a brief assessment of the GRU’s
future outlook.

1 This report uses the abbreviation GRU.
2 Spetsnaz in this report refers to the military spetsnaz brigades under GRU command. There are numerous other elite
units in Russia often referred to as spetsnaz that are not under the control of the GRU.
3 Mark Galeotti, “Putin’s Hydra: Inside Russia’s Intelligence Services,” European Council on Foreign Relations, May
11, 2016, p. 2
Congressional Research Service
1

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Background and History
Russian military intelligence traces its lineage to 1918 under Russian leader Leon Trotsky.4
Similar to civilian intelligence agencies created by the Bolsheviks (Communists) during the
Russian Civil War, Russian military intelligence initially focused on protecting the regime from
“counterrevolutionaries” from abroad. First known as the Registration Department
(Razvedupravlenie, or Razvedupr), Russia’s military intelligence soon became known as the
Fourth Directorate of the Red Army. It gradually expanded its focus to collecting intelligence
abroad and supporting Soviet foreign policy.5 Its activities included running human intelligence
assets, conducting propaganda and disinformation operations, and conducting sabotage operations
(also known as active operations). During the 1920s and 1930s, the Fourth Directorate developed
a reputation for aggressive and often careless operations, which led to numerous diplomatic
incidents.
The Fourth Department also developed rivalries with other Soviet intelligence agencies,
competing for missions, influence, and responsibilities.6 For instance, Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder
of the Cheka, a predecessor to the Committee for State Security (KGB), complained about “the
irresponsible activities of the Razvedupr, dragging us into conflict with neighboring states.”7 The
Fourth Directorate’s close connection with the Comintern (Communist International), through
which it conducted many activities and recruited agents, created friction with the Soviet Union’s
People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs due to blowback from exposed operations and
activities.8
Due to continued infighting and the need to streamline operations, the Main Intelligence
Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) was created in 1942. During World War II, the GRU
supervised sabotage, resistance, and guerrilla actions against the Nazis.9 After the war, the GRU
was placed under the direct command of the General Staff and, alongside the KGB’s First
Directorate, given responsibility for conducting both legal (under diplomatic cover) and
illegal/nonofficial (without diplomatic cover) intelligence operations abroad, primarily focused on
militarily relevant intelligence (such as acquiring Western technology and assessing strategic
military capabilities).10

4 Trotsky was a key leader of the Bolsheviks (the precursor to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) and member
of the Bolshevik (later Communist) Politburo. He also was the People’s Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs from
1918 to 1925, and he was responsible for the creation of the Red Army. Raymond W. Leonard, “Studying the
Kremlin’s Secret Soldiers: A Historiographical Essay on the GRU, 1918–1945,” Journal of Military History, vol. 56,
no. 3 (1992), pp. 403–422; Jonathan Haslam, Near and Distant Neighbors: A New History of Soviet Intelligence (New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015).
5 Raymond W. Leonard, Secret Soldiers of the Revolution: Soviet Military Intelligence, 1918-1933 (Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1999).
6 Leonard, Secret Soldiers, pp. 7, 17-19.
7 The full name of the Cheka was the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and
Sabotage. Haslam, Near and Distant Neighbors, p. 29.
8 The Comintern (Communist International) was a Soviet organization dedicated to advancing Communism globally
through the coordination of national communist parties. Owen Matthews, An Impeccable Spy: Richard Sorge, Stalin’s
Master Agent (London: Bloomsbury, 2019).
9 David M. Glantz, Soviet Military Intelligence in War (New York: Frank Cass, 1990).
10 Raymond L. Garthoff, Soviet Leaders and Intelligence: Assessing the American Adversary During the Cold War
(Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2015), pp. 13-15, 46.
Congressional Research Service
2

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

In addition, the GRU was responsible for the creation of special forces units known as spetsnaz
(voiska spetsialnogo naznacheniya). Growing out of the Soviet experience during the Russian
Civil War, both the NKVD (a KGB precursor) and the GRU trained units in sabotage and
guerrilla-style operations, also known as razvedchiki (literally, “scouts”).11 This experience
proved invaluable during World War II, when the Soviets used partisan formations extensively. In
1950, these forces became the spetsnaz, created to fulfill long-range battlefield reconnaissance
and sabotage operations, specifically targeting NATO command and control and nuclear weapons.
Throughout the Cold War, the GRU spetsnaz gained extensive experience supporting, training,
and supervising local allied forces in numerous conflicts.12 Spetsnaz units played key roles in the
Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. They also gained significant
experience and notoriety during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979-1989). Spetsnaz units
conducted rapid-response, interdiction, and ambush operations and were involved in the 1979
assassination of Afghanistan’s leader, Hafizullah Amin.13
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the GRU, like the Ministry of Defense and
other intelligence services, struggled for financial and political support in Russia. As the KGB
was carved up into various organizations, the GRU fought for relevance and to prevent its
missions from being given to newly emerging security organizations.14 Despite massive personnel
losses and budget cuts, the GRU retained its foreign intelligence presence and its independence
under the General Staff.15 At the same time, GRU spetsnaz forces suffered heavily from budget
cuts and the lack of a clearly defined need, since conflict with NATO became unlikely. Many
officers saw better prospects in the Airborne Forces (VDV), which positioned itself as a more
capable and elite rapid-response unit. Some former spetsnaz allegedly worked for organized
crime.16 In wars against Russia’s breakaway region of Chechnya in the 1990s and 2000s, the
GRU and spetsnaz units participated in direct combat and managed local allied Chechen forces.17
Organizational Structure
Russian military intelligence headquarters is located in the Khoroshevsky District in Moscow.18
Currently, the GRU is headed by Admiral Igor Kostyukov.19 Under the command of the General

11 Mark Galeotti, Spetsnaz: Russia’s Special Forces (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2015), pp. 8-11.
12 Mark Galeotti, “Spetsnaz: Operational Intelligence, Political Warfare, and Battlefield Role,” Marshall Center
Security Insights, no. 46 (February 2020).
13 Galeotti, Spetsnaz: Russia’s Special Forces, pp. 14-28.
14 Amy Knight, Spies Without Cloaks: The KGB’s Successors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 119-
120; Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia’s Security State and the
Enduring Legacy of the KGB (New York: Public Affairs, 2010), pp. 14, 21.
15 Amy Knight, “This Russian Spy Agency Is in the Middle of Everything,” Daily Beast, August 10, 2018.
16 Graham Turbiville, “Organized Crime and the Russian Armed Forces,” Transnational Organized Crime vol. 1, no. 4
(1995), pp. 57-104; Mark Galeotti, “The Criminalisation of Russian State Security,” Global Crime, vol. 7, no. 3-4
(2006), p. 472; Mark Galeotti, The Vory: Russia’s Super Mafia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), pp. 207-
208.
17 Galeotti, Spetsnaz: Russia’s Special Forces, pp. 31-35; Mark Kramer, “The Perils of Counterinsurgency: Russia’s
War in Chechnya,” International Security, vol. 29, no. 3 (2004/05), pp. 14, 18; Olga Oliker, Russia’s Chechen Wars
1994-2000: Lessons from Urban Combat (Santa Monica: RAND, 2001).
18 President of Russia, “President Vladimir Putin visited the new headquarters of the Russian Armed Forces General
Staff Chief Intelligence Directorate (GRU),” press release, November 8, 2006, at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/
news/36598.
19 TASS, “First Naval Officer Nominated to Head Russia’s GRU,” November 22, 2018; Tatiana Stanovaya, “New
Congressional Research Service
3

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Staff and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the GRU maintains significant operational autonomy
and can brief Russian President Vladimir Putin directly.20

GRU Organizational Structure
The GRU is divided into 15 directorates—4 regional and 11 mission-specific. Within the directorates are multiple
sub-directorates or individual units. Individual GRU units are identified by their military postbox numbers. For
example, the GRU’s cyber capabilities are located within the Sixth Directorate and include Unit 26165 and Unit
74455.
The GRU’s true structure is a closely guarded secret. The structure described below is based on publicly available
reports and documents.
Regional Directorates (4)
Mission-Specific Directorates (11)
(1) First Directorate: European Union
(5) Fifth Directorate: Operational Intelligence
(2) Second Directorate: North and South America,
(6) Sixth Directorate: Electronic/Signals Intelligence
United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand
(7) Seventh Directorate: NATO
(3) Third Directorate: Asia
(8) Eighth Directorate: Spetsnaz
(4) Fourth Directorate: Africa
(9) Ninth Directorate: Military Technology
(10) Tenth Directorate: Military Economy
(11) Eleventh Directorate: Strategic Doctrine
(12) Twelfth Directorate: Information Operations
(13) Space Intelligence Directorate
(14) Operational and Technical Directorate
(15) External Relations Department
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) interview with Mark Galeotti; Viktor Suvorov, Inside the
Aquarium: The Making of a Top Soviet Spy (New York: MacMil an, 1985); Stanislav Lekarev, “Two Types of Russian
Intelligence Are Unified,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta, August 31, 2001; Dani l Turovsky, “What Is the GRU? Who Gets
Recruited to Be a Spy? Why Are They Exposed So Often?,” Meduza, November 6, 2018; Mark Urban, The Skripal
Files: The Life and Near Death of a Russian Spy (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2018); RFE/RL, “On the Trail
of the 12 Indicted Russian Intelligence Officers,” July 19, 2020.
Today, Russian military intelligence is responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence using
a full range of methods and sources (human, cyber, satellite, and signals intelligence), intelligence
analysis, and battlefield reconnaissance and sabotage missions through its spetsnaz units. This
means the GRU oversees both strategic- and tactical-level intelligence collection.21 The GRU has
increased its cyber capabilities in recent years (conducting election interference, offensive
cyberattacks, and disinformation operations), in addition to its traditional electronic, signals, and
radio intelligence capabilities.22

Boss, Old Rules,” Riddle, November 28, 2018.
20 Galeotti, “Putin’s Hydra,” p. 2.
21 Andrew Roth, “How the GRU Spy Agency Targets the West, from Cyberspace to Salisbury,” Guardian, August 6,
2018; Guy Faulconbridge, “What Is Russia’s GRU Military Intelligence Agency?” Reuters, October 5, 2018.
22 The GRU always had a large signals intelligence collection mission, but its capabilities were increased when it
acquired the radio-electronic intelligence capabilities of the now-defunct Federal Agency of Government
Communications and Information (FAPSI) in 2003. Gordon Bennett, “FPS and FAPSI—RIP,” Conflict Studies
Research Centre, Occasional Paper no. 96, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
4

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Due to its dual role, the GRU has extensive capabilities and experience organizing proxy forces
and local allies in numerous conflict zones, as well as in conducting assassinations and other
targeted attacks. Despite overseeing both intelligence and spetsnaz operations, not all GRU
officers have spetsnaz backgrounds or vice versa.23 Analysts contend, however, that overseeing
both types of operations has led to a risk-acceptant and risk-taking culture, thereby contributing to
operations with a higher likelihood of exposure.24
Relationship to Other Russian Intelligence Agencies
Russia’s intelligence agencies are divided organizationally and across factional and personal
lines.25 Agencies compete with each other for greater responsibilities, budgets, and political
influence, often at the expense of other agencies.26 This competitive environment often
contributes to uncoordinated and duplicated intelligence efforts.27
The GRU operates alongside the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Federal Security Service
(FSB), and Federal Protective Service (FSO).28 The GRU and the SVR are Russia’s primary
intelligence agencies responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence.29 Domestically, the
FSB is responsible for counterintelligence. The FSB, however, has sought to gain a greater
foreign intelligence role and has significant international operations, especially in Russia’s
neighboring post-Soviet states.30 This reportedly has caused significant friction within Russia’s
intelligence community, especially with the GRU and SVR, which consider foreign intelligence
collection their primary responsibility.31 The FSO operates as an overseer of the various security
services, helping to monitor infighting and the accuracy of intelligence reporting. Although the
GRU can directly brief the president, it does not have the same level of direct access as the SVR
(the primary agency responsible for foreign intelligence), the FSB (the primary agency
responsible for domestic security), or the FSO, which controls the Presidential Security Service.32
Analysts and reporting therefore suggest the GRU’s influence is often relative to the ability of its
chief to develop personal relationships with Russia’s political leadership.33

23 Mark Galeotti, “Special Troops of GRU Will Be Growing Headache for the West,” Raamoprusland, September 28,
2018.
24 Galeotti, “Putin’s Hydra,” p. 2.
25 Brian D. Taylor, State Building in Putin’s Russia: Policing and Coercion After Communism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011); Tatiana Stanovaya, “Why the Kremlin Can’t Keep Its Chekists in Check,” Riddle, July 25,
2019.
26 Peter Reddaway, Russia’s Domestic Security Wars: Putin’s Use of Divide and Rule Against His Hardline Allies
(London: Palgrave Pivot, 2018); Joss I. Meakins, “Squabbling Siloviki: Factionalism Within Russia’s Security
Services,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol. 31, no. 2 (2018), pp. 235-270.
27 Mark Galeotti, “The Intelligence and Security Services and Strategic Decision-Making,” Marshall Center Security
Insights, no. 30 (May 2019).
28 For more on Russia’s internal security and law enforcement agencies, see CRS In Focus IF11647, Russian Law
Enforcement and Internal Security Agencies, by Andrew S. Bowen; Mark Galeotti, “Russian Intelligence and Security
Agencies Vie for Central Role,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, August 29, 2018.
29 The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) inherited the Committee for State Security’s (KGB’s) foreign intelligence
operations of its First Main Directorate.
30 Mark Galeotti, “The Spies Who Love Putin,” Atlantic, January 17, 2017.
31 Andrei Soldatov, “Russian Foreign Intelligence Might Be in for a More Prominent Political Role,” Raamoprusland,
May 24, 2019.
32 Mark Galeotti, “Spooks in the Kremlin,” Foreign Policy, April 27, 2019.
33 Galeotti, “Spooks in the Kremlin.”
Congressional Research Service
5

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

2008 Georgian War to Present Day
In 2008, Russia fought a war with Georgia to prevent Georgia from asserting control over its
breakaway region of South Ossetia.34 While ultimately victorious, the Russian military performed
poorly, struggling with command-and-control issues, lack of coordination across service
branches, and a low level of accurate intelligence on Georgian military forces and capabilities.35
Low-quality intelligence led to the bombing of empty airfields and military installations, friendly
fire incidents, and a misunderstanding of the capabilities and morale of Georgian forces. Analysts
assessed that, although intelligence provided by the GRU was inadequate, the spetsnaz brigades
performed adequately.36 Overall, Russia’s disappointment with its military performance led to a
program to modernize and reform the armed forces.37
Much of the blame for Russia’s military performance was placed on the GRU for providing faulty
intelligence.38 In response, competing security and intelligence agencies, along with other
branches of the military, sought to take advantage of the GRU’s weakened political position. Due
to its large size and expansive mission areas, the GRU suffered from the lack of a clearly defined
role in the wake of the Georgian war.39 In 2009, the GRU head, who had served since 1997, was
replaced by his deputy.40 Media reports alleged there was discussion of downgrading the GRU’s
status from a Main Directorate to a Directorate.41 By 2011, the GRU was downsized by over
1,000 officers, with many retiring or transferring to other positions; the size of the GRU’s foreign
intelligence operations also was reduced.42 Perhaps most significant were plans for the GRU to
lose control of the spetsnaz brigades to Russia’s military district commanders in 2010.43
The GRU’s fortunes began to change with the appointment of Igor Sergun as GRU head in
2011.44 Sergun presided over a revitalization of the GRU’s prestige. In contrast to previous GRU
heads, analysts reportedly viewed Sergun (who had a background as a defense attaché and an
intelligence officer) as a politically astute leader able to lobby for the agency’s interests.45 The
GRU and Sergun prioritized the agency’s abilities to conduct “active measures,” or aggressive

34 Mikhail Barabanov, Anton Lavrov, and Vyacheslav Tseluiko, Tanks of August, ed. Ruslan Pukhov (Moscow: Center
for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, 2010).
35Ariel Cohen and Robert E. Hamilton, The Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Implications (Carlisle,
PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2011); Michael Kofman, “Russian Performance in the Russo-Georgian War Revisited,”
War On The Rocks, September 4, 2018.
36 Cohen and Hamilton, Russian Military and the Georgia War; Kofman, “Russian Performance in the Russo-Georgian
War Revisited.”
37 For more see CRS In Focus IF11603, Russian Armed Forces: Military Modernization and Reforms, by Andrew S.
Bowen
38 Tor Bukkvoll, “Russia’s Military Performance in Georgia,” Military Review vol. 89, no. 6 (2009), pp. 57-62.
39 Mark Galeotti, “Putin’s Secret Weapon,” Foreign Policy, July 7, 2014.
40 Mark Galeotti, “Korabelnikov Leaves Russian Military Intelligence,” In Moscow’s Shadows, April 26, 2009.
41 This would represent a serious demotion that would limit the GRU’s influence, autonomy, and political importance.
It would have limited the GRU’s direct access to the president and increased the General Staff’s direct control.
42 Brian Whitmore, “Resetting the Siloviki,” RFE/RL Power Vertical, October 21, 2011; Denis Telmanov, “GRU Chief
to be Fired Upon Leaving Hospital,” Izvestia, September 27, 2011.
43 Roger McDermott, “Bat or Mouse? The Strange Case of Reforming Spetsnaz,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, November 2,
2010.
44 Denis Telmanov, “GRU Headed by Igor Sergun,” Izvestia, December 26, 2011.
45 Roger McDermott, “Russian Military Intelligence: Shaken but Not Stirred,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, February 7,
2012; Mark Galeotti, “We Don’t Know What to Call Russian Military Intelligence and That May Be a Problem,” War
On The Rocks, January 19, 2016; Galeotti, “Putin’s Hydra,” p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
6

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

operations such as assassinations, controlling proxy forces, political subversion, and eventually
cyber operations.46The Russian military also abandoned plans in 2013 to move spetsnaz to the
control of the ground forces due to a combination of bureaucratic hurdles and resistance.47
The GRU demonstrated its importance during Russia’s 2014 occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea
region and invasion of eastern Ukraine.48 Russia’s Crimea operation relied heavily upon GRU
intelligence and spetsnaz forces to seize strategic points across the peninsula.49 The GRU’s
success continued in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine by creating,
supervising, and monitoring the numerous proxy and local rebel forces fighting against the
Ukrainian government.50
The GRU’s experience in managing proxy forces continued to prove useful as Russia intervened
in Syria.51 Spetsnaz proved instrumental in training, advising, and coordinating air strikes with
Syrian government and pro-government militia forces.52 The traditional spetsnaz mission of
battlefield reconnaissance was particularly important for Russia’s air campaign, which helped the
Syrian government retake crucial areas and urban centers.53
As the GRU was reasserting its role and missions, it began to invest in cyber capabilities.54
Development of these types of capabilities would allow the GRU to operate in an environment
marked by confusion and low attribution.55 Contested environments, such as in Ukraine and the

46 Galeotti, “Putin’s Hydra,” p. 7.
47 This also roughly coincided with the reversal of many of the initial military reforms and the removal of Anatoly
Serdyukov, Minister of Defense, and General Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, who initiated the wide-
ranging reform program. Mark Galeotti, “The Rising Influence of Russian Special Forces,” Jane’s Intelligence Review,
November 24, 2014; Alexander Golts, “Reform: The End of the First Phase – Will There Be a Second?” Journal of
Slavic Military Studies, vol. 27, no. 1 (2014), pp. 131-146.
48 Charles K. Bartles and Roger N. McDermott, “Russia’s Military Operation in Crimea: Road Testing Rapid Reaction
Capabilities,” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 61, no. 6 (2014), pp. 46-63; Galeotti, “Putin’s Secret Weapon”;
Michael Kofman et al., Lessons From Russia’s Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, RAND, 2014.
49 Anton Lavrov, “Russian Again: The Military Operation for Crimea,” in Brothers Armed: Military Aspects of the
Crisis in Ukraine, ed. Colby Howard and Ruslan Pukhov, vol. 2 (Minneapolis, MN: East View Press, 2015), pp. 157-
186.
50 Sam Jones, “Photos and Roses for GRU’s ‘Spetsnaz’ Casualties,” Financial Times, August 8, 2014; Roger
McDermott, “Russian Spetsnaz Personnel Detained in Ukraine,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, May 20, 2015; Tor Bukkvoll,
“Russian Special Operations Forces in Crimea and Donbas,” Parameters, vol. 46., no. 2 (2016), pp. 18-20; Tim Ripley
and Mark Galeotti, “Donbass Conflict Offers Pointers for Future Russian Military Action,” Jane’s Intelligence Review,
June 18, 2019.
51 Sarah Fainberg, “Russian Spetsnaz, Contractors, and Volunteers in the Syrian Conflict,” Russie.nei Visions, IFRI,
December 2017; Brian Katz and Nicholas Harrington, “The Military Campaign,” in Moscow’s War in Syria, ed. Seth
G. Jones (CSIS, 2020), pp. 18-40.
52 Mark Galeotti, “The Three Faces of Russian Spetsnaz in Syria,” War on the Rocks, March 21, 2016; Thomas
Gibbons-Neff, “How Russian Special Forces Are Shaping the Fight in Syria,” Washington Post, March 29, 2016.
53 Anton Lavrov, “Russian Aerial Operations in the Syrian War,” in Russia’s War in Syria: Assessing Russian Military
Capabilities and Lessons Learned, ed. Robert E. Hamilton, Chris Miller, Aaron Stein (Philadelphia, PA: Foreign Policy
Research Institute, 2020), p. 95.
54 Anton Troianovski and Ellen Nakashima, “How Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency Became the Covert Muscle in
Putin’s Duels with the West,” Washington Post, December 28, 2018.
55 Andy Greenberg, Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers
(New York: Doubleday, 2019), pp. 237-242; Bilyana Lilly and Joe Cheravitch, “The Past, Present, and Future of
Russia’s Cyber Strategy and Forces,” NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 12th International
Conference on Cyber Conflict (2020), pp. 140-142.
Congressional Research Service
7

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

cyber arena, have provided the GRU another way to justify and demonstrate its importance to the
political leadership.56
In recent years, several GRU operations were uncovered (see “Attempted Hacking of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” below), exposing Russian complicity
and complicating diplomatic relations.57 Some analysts question whether these exposures are a
result of GRU incompetence and amateurishness.58 Other analysts suggest competing Russian
security agencies may have undermined the GRU’s position for their own benefit.59 The GRU
also suffered numerous leadership changes; then-GRU head Sergun died in late 2015 and was
replaced by Igor Korobov, who himself died in 2018.60
There is no outward indication the GRU has fallen into disfavor, despite these setbacks.61 At its
100th anniversary celebration in 2018, shortly after the attempted assassination of former GRU
intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in the UK, Putin thanked the agency and stated, “As supreme
commander, I of course know with no exaggeration about your unique abilities including in
conducting special operations.”62 Although it is unclear exactly how Russia’s political leadership
views the GRU, the agency’s operations and publicly available information indicate the GRU
remains a valued asset, especially for aggressive and risky operations.
Intelligence Collection
The GRU and the SVR share responsibility for the collection of foreign intelligence.63 This
includes the use of intelligence officers operating both under legal (diplomatic) cover out of
Russia’s embassies and under illegal or nonofficial (without diplomatic) cover.64 GRU
intelligence officers are trained at the Military Diplomatic Academy of the General Staff.65 In
each embassy, the GRU and the SVR operate individually, with separate command structures.66
The GRU nominally focuses on the collection of militarily relevant information, such as the size
and capabilities of foreign militaries and decisionmaking, as well as technology acquisition. This
focus does not preclude the collection of political intelligence, which is the primary focus of the
SVR.67 However, as analyst Mark Galeotti has opined, “Russian collection operations are not just

56 Roth, “How the GRU Spy Agency Targets the West, from Cyberspace to Salisbury.”
57 Sarah Rainsford, “Have Russian Spies Lost Their Touch?,” BBC, October 6, 2018.
58 Karina Orlova, “Russia’s Intelligence Failures,” American Interest, October 10, 2018; Luke Harding, “A Chain of
Stupidity: The Skripal Case and the Decline of Russia’s Spy Agencies,” Guardian, June 23, 2020.
59 Tatiana Stanovaya, “GRU Exposure: A Sign of Internal Power Struggles?,” Riddle, October 16, 2018.
60 Ivan Nechepurenko, “Igor D. Sergun, Chief of Russian Military Intelligence, Dies at 58,” New York Times, January
5, 2016; TASS, “Head of Russian Military Intelligence GRU Igor Korobov Dies—Source,” November 21, 2018.
61 Mark Galeotti, “Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency Isn’t Stupid,” Foreign Policy, September 6, 2018.
62 Tom Balmforth, “Putin Praises Skills of GRU Spy Agency Accused of UK Poison Attack,” Reuters, November 2,
2018; RFE/RL, “Putin Praises GRU Spy Agency Blamed for Spy Attacks in West,” November 3, 2018.
63 Faulconbridge, “What Is Russia’s GRU Military Intelligence Agency?”
64 Daniil Turovsky, “What Is the GRU? Who Gets Recruited to Be a Spy? Why Are They Exposed So Often?,”
Meduza, November 6, 2018.
65 Turovsky, “What Is the GRU?”; Richard Framingham, “Career Training Program, GRU Style,” Central Intelligence
Agency, September 18, 1995, at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol10no4/
html/v10i4a04p_0001.htm.
66 Mark Urban, The Skripal Files: The Life and Near Death of a Russian Spy (New York: Henry Holt and Company,
2018).
67 Amie Ferris-Rotman and Ellen Nakashima, “Estonia Knows a Lot About Battling Russian Spies, and the West Is
Congressional Research Service
8

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

highly active but also extremely professional. Tasking, though, appears less impressive. While the
Foreign Intelligence Service and GRU have a strong sense of the military and technical secrets
they are meant to uncover, their political objectives are sometimes naive.”68 Analysts contend this
tendency may reflect a poor understanding of democratic political systems.
Arrests of GRU agents and assets in recent years illustrate the level of GRU activity. The 2019
annual report of Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service stated that five GRU assets were
uncovered from 2014 to 2018.69 In 2020, uncovered GRU assets included French and Austrian
military officers, as well as a former U.S. Special Forces officer.70 In late December 2020,
Bulgaria expelled a Russian military attaché over espionage, the sixth expulsion of Russian
diplomats since October 2019.71 In March 2021, Bulgarian prosecutors arrested six people for
running a Russian spy ring and passing classified information to Russian military intelligence.72
In April 2021, Italian authorities caught two Russian military intelligence officers accepting
classified information from an Italian navy officer.73
Spetsnaz
The GRU oversees Russia’s spetsnaz brigades.74 Spetsnaz are an elite light infantry force
designed to conduct battlefield reconnaissance, sabotage, and small unit direct action missions.
They are organized into seven regular Independent Special Designation Brigades, a naval
spetsnaz unit for each of Russia’s fleets, a brigade used for testing new weapons and equipment,
and an independent regiment in occupied Crimea. Despite efforts to professionalize the force,
units are still composed of some conscripts.

Paying Attention,” Washington Post, November 1, 2018.
68 Galeotti, “Putin’s Hydra,” p. 7.
69 Michael Weiss, “The Hero Who Betrayed His Country,” Atlantic, June 26, 2019; Estonian Foreign Intelligence
Service, International Security and Estonia, Annual Report (2019), pp. 45-46.
70 RFE/RL, “Retired Austrian Army Colonel Found Guilty of Spying for Russia,” June 10, 2020; U. S. Department of
Justice, “Former Army Special Forces Officer Charged in Russian Espionage Conspiracy,” press release, August 21,
2020; Victor Mallet, “French Military Officer Held on Suspicion of Spying,” Financial Times, August 30, 2020.
71 Reuters, “Bulgaria Expels Russian Diplomat Over Espionage,” December 18, 2020; Vessela Sergueva, “Bulgaria
Breaks Up Suspected Russia-Linked Spy Ring,” AFP, March 19, 2021.
72 Georgi Kantchev, “How an Alleged Russian Spy Ring Used Cold War Tactics,” Wall Street Journal, March 25,
2021.
73 Alvise Armellini, “Italy Expels Russians After Spies ‘Caught Red-Handed,’” AFP, April 2, 2021.
74 They are nominally on loan to the Military District Commanders across Russia.
Congressional Research Service
9

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz operate as Russia’s primary military reconnaissance force. They are similar in structure, mission, and
training to U.S. Army Rangers. The below structure is recreated from publicly available sources.
Spetsnaz Units
Naval Spetsnaz
 2nd Brigade (Promezhitsa, Pskov)
 42nd Independent Naval Reconnaissance

Spetsnaz Point (Vladivostok, Pacific Fleet)
3rd Guards Brigade (Tolyatti)


10th Brigade (Molkino)
420th Independent Naval Reconnaissance
Spetsnaz Point (Severomorsk, Northern Fleet)
 14th Brigade (Usurisk)
 431st Independent Naval Reconnaissance
 16th Brigade (Chuchkogo/Tambov, Moscow)
Spetsnaz Point (Sevastopol, Black Sea Fleet)
 22nd Guards Brigade (Aksai/Stepnoi)
 561st Independent Naval Reconnaissance
 24th Brigade (Irkutsk)
Spetsnaz Point (Parusnoe, Kaliningrad, Baltic Fleet)
 100th Brigade (Mozdok)
 25th Independent Spetsnaz Regiment (Stavropol)
Sources: Mark Galeotti, “Spetsnaz: Operational Intelligence, Political Warfare, and Battlefield Role,” Marshall
Center, Security Insights no. 46 (February 2020); Russian Military Capability in a Ten Year Perspective-2019, eds. Fredrik
Westerlund and Susanne Oxenstierna (Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI, 2019).
Supervising Proxy Forces
The GRU and spetsnaz have gained significant experience creating and managing local allied
proxy forces. Often these proxy forces are composed of organized criminals, warlords, or former
rebels. Most often, spetsnaz operators act as overseers and trainers, helping to create new units
directly subordinated to the GRU. This gives the GRU greater direct control over local proxies,
which helps limit the influence of competing security agencies and increases leverage over local
politicians.75
During Russia’s Second Chechen War (1999-2009), the GRU—along with other agencies, such
as the FSB—managed several local pro-Russian Chechen units, which proved effective against
Chechen rebels.76 The most famous units were Special Battalions Zapad and Vostok, which also
participated in Russia’s 2008 war against Georgia.77
During Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the GRU relied heavily upon its experience
managing proxies. During the course of the conflict, media reporting documented the presence of
the Vostok Battalion, reportedly reconstituted after being demobilized in 2008, and identified
GRU officer Oleg Ivannikov as allegedly responsible for transporting the anti-aircraft system that
shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in 2014.78 Ukraine also was used as a testing ground for

75 Other Russian security and intelligence agencies also create their own local units to compete for influence and
control.
76 Emil Souleimanov, “An Ethnography of Counterinsurgency: Kadyrovtsy and Russia’s Policy of Chechenization,”
Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 31, no. 2 (2015), pp. 91-114.
77 Tomas Smid and Miroslav Mares, “Kadyrovtsy: Russia’s Counterinsurgency Strategy and the Wars of Paramilitary
Clans,” Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 38, no. 5 (2015), pp. 650-677.
78 Claire Bigg, “Vostok Battalion, a Powerful New Player in Eastern Ukraine,” RFE/RL, May 30, 2014; Andrew Roth,
“A Separatist Militia in Ukraine with Russian Fighters Holds a Key,” New York Times, June 4, 2014; Bellingcat,
“MH17 - Russian GRU Commander ‘Orion’ Identified as Oleg Ivannikov,” May 25, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 14 link to page 14 Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Russian private military companies, including the Wagner Group, which reportedly was closely
tied to the GRU.79
Spetsnaz also played a key role in Russia’s intervention in Syria.80 Spetznaz forces conducted
battlefield reconnaissance and acted as trainers and advisers for the Syrian army and various pro-
government militia forces, such as the 5th Assault Corps.81
Assassinations and Targeted Attacks
The GRU’s military capabilities have enabled it to carry out targeted attacks abroad. The GRU is
implicated in numerous attempted and successful assassinations or targeted attacks (see “Targeted
Overseas Attacks Linked to GRU Since 2014: Role of Unit 29155,” below). Some of these
attacks were uncovered due to careless or lackluster spycraft, leading to accusations of
incompetence on the part of the GRU.82 Some analysts, however, contend that the intent behind
some targeted attacks is to send a message rather than to hide complicity.83 If so, exposure is not a
failure if the attack succeeds in conveying Russia’s ability and willingness to carry out targeted
attacks.84
One of the GRU’s most notorious and high-profile assassinations occurred in 2004; former
Chechen separatist president Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and his 13-year-old son were killed in a car
bomb attack while living in exile in Qatar.85 Eventually, Qatar convicted two Russian agents of
his murder, while a third was released due to his status as first secretary of the Russian Embassy,
with diplomatic immunity.86 The men reportedly were GRU agents. They were repatriated to
Russia to serve out their sentence but disappeared upon their return.87
Targeted Overseas Attacks Linked to GRU Since 2014: Role of Unit 29155
According to information compiled from multiple media outlets, Unit 29155 is an elite GRU unit
that conducts sensitive foreign operations, including assassinations and targeted attacks.88 Unit
29155 is reportedly connected to Russia’s elite Special Operations Forces Command headquarters
unit, based in Senezh, outside of Moscow.89 The reported head of Unit 29155 is Major General

79 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11650, Russian Private Military Companies (PMCs), by Andrew S.
Bowen.
80 Anton Mardasov, “What Are Russian Special Operations Forces Doing in Idlib?,” Al Jazeera, August 29, 2019.
81 Gregory Waters, “The Lion and the Eagle: The Syrian Arab Army’s Destruction and Rebirth,” Middle East Institute,
July 18, 20919; Anton Lavrov, “The Efficiency of the Syrian Armed Forces: An Analysis of Russian Assistance,”
Carnegie Middle East Center, March 26, 2020.
82 Bellingcat, “305 Car Registrations May Point to Massive GRU Security Breach,” October 4, 2018.
83 David V. Gioe, Michael S. Goodman, and David S. Frey, “Unforgiven: Russian Intelligence Vengeance as Political
Theater and Strategic Messaging,” Intelligence and National Security, vol. 34, no. 4 (2019), pp. 561-575.
84 Galeotti, “Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency Isn’t Stupid.”
85 Nick Paton Walsh, “Top Chechen Separatist Dies in Qatar Bomb Blast,” Guardian, February 13, 2002.
86 Steven Lee Myers, “Qatar Court Convicts 2 Russians in Top Chechen’s Death,” New York Times, July 1, 2004.
87 Sarah Rainsford, “Convicted Russia Agents ‘Missing,’” BBC, February 17, 2005; Soldatov and Borogan, The New
Nobility, pp. 193-200.
88 Michael Schwirtz, “Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe, Security Officials Say,” New York Times,
October 8, 2019; Bellingcat, “Skripal Poisoner Attended GRU Commander Family Wedding,” October 14, 2019.
89 RFE/RL, “On the Trail of the 12 Indicted Russian Intelligence Officers,” July 29, 2018. For more on the Special
Operations Forces Command, see Roger McDermott, “Russia’s Special Operations Forces Command and the Strategy
of Limited Actions,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, May 21, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
11

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Andrey Averyanov.90 Anatoliy Chepiga—a suspected attacker in the 2018 poisoning of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter in the UK—was photographed at the wedding of Averyanov’s daughter
in 2017.91 Many operatives of Unit 29155 also appear to have backgrounds in GRU spetsnaz
brigades—including unit commander Averyanov. Further information supporting the unit’s
operational nature is its reported headquarters at the 161st Special Purpose Specialist Training
Center, a spetsnaz training facility.92
In recent years, prosecutors and journalists have linked Unit 29155 to numerous malign activities
across Europe. Such activities include Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea
region in 2014; the poisonings of Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev in 2015; a coup attempt
in 2016 to overthrow and replace a pro-Western prime minister in Montenegro, potentially to
prevent the country from joining NATO; and the poisoning of Russian intelligence defector
Sergei Skripal in 2018.93
In addition, Unit 29155 operatives were traced to Switzerland around the time other GRU units
hacked the World Anti-Doping Agency and planned hacks on the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which were investigating state-sponsored doping in sports and
Russia’s use of chemical weapons, respectively.94 Spain also has opened an investigation of travel
by known Unit 29155 operative Denis Sergeev to Barcelona in 2017 around the time Catalan
separatists organized an illegal referendum on independence.95
In 2019, French newspaper Le Monde reported that European intelligence agencies had tracked
GRU operatives from Unit 29155 who appeared to be using France’s Haute-Savoie region in the
Alps as a base to conduct operations.96
In June 2020, media organizations reported that U.S. intelligence officials had concluded GRU
agents had offered payments to Taliban-linked militants to attack U.S. and other international

90 Reportedly, Averyanov and the two suspected assassins of Sergei Skripal were awarded Russia’s highest medal—
Hero of Russia. Bellingcat, “The Dreadful Eight: GRU’s Unit 29155 and the 2015 Poisoning of Emilian Gebrev,”
November 23, 2019; Bellingcat, “An Officer and a Diplomat: The Strange Case of the GRU Spy with a Red Notice,”
February 25, 2020.
91 BBC News, “Russian Spy Poisoning: Woman ‘Identifies’ Suspect as Anatoliy Chepiga,” September 29, 2018;
Bellingcat, “Skripal Poisoner Attended GRU Commander Family Wedding,” October 14, 2019.
92 Schwirtz, “Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe.”
93 For more on the Skripal poisoning and U.S. sanctions imposed in response, see CRS In Focus IF10962, Russia, the
Skripal Poisoning, and U.S. Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack and Cory Welt; David Bond, Henry Mance, and Henry
Foy, “UK Blames Russian Military Intelligence Agents for Skripal Attack,” Financial Times, September 5, 2018;
Crown Prosecution Service, “CPS Statement – Salisbury,” September 5, 2018; Bellingcat, “The GRU Globetrotters:
Mission London,” June 28, 2019; Michael Schwirtz, “How a Poisoning in Bulgaria Exposed Russian Assassins in
Europe,” New York Times, December 22, 2019; Shaun Walker, “Alleged Russian Spies Sentenced to Jail over
Montenegro Coup Plot,” Guardian, May 9, 2019; RFE/RL, “Bulgaria Charges Three Russians In Absentia Over
Attempted Murders in 2015,” January 23, 2020; RFE/RL, “Poisons, Patents, Phone Logs: Records Reveal Russian
Scientists’ Ties to Military Intelligence,” October 23, 2020; Bellingcat, “Russia’s Clandestine Chemical Weapons
Programme and the GRU’s Unit 29155,” October 23, 2020.
94 U.S. Department of Justice, “U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence
and Disinformation Operations,” press release, October 4, 2018; Bellingcat, “GRU Globetrotters 2: The Spies Who
Loved Switzerland,” July 6, 2019.
95 Oscar Lopez-Fonseca, Lucia Abellan, Maria R. Sahuquillo, “Western Intelligence Services Tracked Russian Spy in
Catalonia,” El Pais, November 22, 2019.
96 See Ken Dilanian and Michele Neubert, “Russian Agents Planned Hit from Assassins’ Lairs in French Alps, Say
Intel Officials,” NBC News, December 5, 2019; Alla Hurska, “Europe Ensnared in a Web of Russian Spies,” Eurasia
Daily Monitor, December 11, 2019 (citing Le Monde, “La Haute-Savoie camp de base d’espions russes specialises dans
les assassinats cibles,” December 4, 2019, in French).
Congressional Research Service
12

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

forces in Afghanistan. Reportedly, U.S. intelligence sources believed GRU Unit 29155 was
responsible for facilitating these payments.97 U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly differed in
their level of confidence concerning the accuracy of specific “bounty” payments and the direct
role of the Kremlin in authorizing payments, but the agencies reportedly shared “high
confidence” in the existence of “strong ties ... between Russian operatives and the Afghan
network where the bounty claims arose.”98
In April 2021, Czech authorities blamed Unit 29155 for a series of previously unexplained
explosions at arms depots in 2014, which killed two people.99 In response, Czech authorities
expelled 18 Russian diplomats; Russia responded by expelling 20 Czech diplomats.100 Ultimately,
Czech authorities expelled over 70 diplomats to bring the traditionally large Russian diplomatic
mission to Prague in line with the Czech mission in Moscow.101 Media reporting alleged the arms
belonged to Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev, who reportedly survived poisoning attempts
by Unit 29155 in 2015 and was planning to ship the ammunition to Ukraine at the time of the
explosions.102 Soon after the revelations, Bulgarian prosecutors announced investigations into a
series of unexplained explosions at several ammunition depots inside Bulgaria.103
In addition to the GRU and Unit 29155, Russia’s other intelligence services reportedly operate
clandestine teams for sensitive operations abroad. The FSB controls Russia’s elite antiterrorist
teams, Alpha and Vympel, located within the FSB’s Special Purpose Center.104 Alpha is Russia’s
primary counterterrorist force. Vympel is responsible for external operations, including sabotage,
alleged assassinations, and covert surveillance. Vympel reportedly is linked to the 2019 daytime
assassination of former Chechen military commander Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Berlin.105 The
SVR also reportedly has an elite operational unit known as Zaslon; little public information is
available about the unit, although its presence was reportedly documented in Syria.106

97 Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt and Michael Schwirtz, “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S.
Troops, Intelligence Says,” New York Times, June 26, 2020; Charlie Savage et al., “Suspicions of Russian Bounties
Were Bolstered by Data on Financial Transfers,” New York Times, June 30, 2020.
98 Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt, and Michael Schwirtz, “Russian Spy Team Left Traces That Bolstered CIA’s Bounty
Judgement,” New York Times, May 7, 2021.
99 Mike Eckel, Ivan Bedrov, and Olha Komarova, “A Czech Explosion, Russian Agents, A Bulgarian Arms Dealer: The
Recipe for a Major Spy Scandal in Central Europe,” RFERL, April 18, 2021; Loveday Morris, Ladka Bauerova, and
Robyn Dixon, “Accusations of Spying and Sabotage Plunge Russian-Czech Relations Into the Deep Freeze,”
Washington Post, April 19, 2021.
100 James Shotter, “Czechs Expel 18 Russian Diplomats over 2014 Explosion,” FT, April 18, 2021.
101 Henry Foy, “Russia Expels Seven More European Diplomats,” FT, April 28, 2021; RFERL, “Dozens of Russian
Diplomats Leave Czech Republic amid Strained Relations,” May 29, 2021.
102 Michael Schwirtz, “The Arms Merchant in the Sights of Russia’s Elite Assassination Squad,” New York Times,
April 24, 2021.
103 Boryana Dzhambazova and Michael Schwirtz, “Russian Spy Unit Investigated for Links to Bulgarian Explosions,”
April 28, 2021.
104 These units are known officially as Directorate-A and Directorate-V. For more, see Boris Volodarsky, “License to
Kill,” Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2006; Mark Galeotti, Russian Security and Paramilitary Forces Since 1991
(Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2013), pp. 35-42.
105 The Federal Security Service (FSB) also is linked to numerous assassinations of ex-Chechen fighters and Islamists
in Turkey. BBC News, “Have Russian Hitmen Been Killing with Impunity in Turkey?” December 13, 2016; Bellingcat,
“‘V’ For ‘Vympel’: FSB’s Secretive Department ‘V’ Behind Assassination of Georgian Asylum Seeker in Germany,”
February 17, 2020; Bellingcat, “FSB’s Magnificent Seven: New Links Between Berlin and Istanbul Assassinations,”
June 29, 2020.
106 Galeotti, “The Three Faces of Russian Spetsnaz in Syria.”
Congressional Research Service
13

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Cyberespionage and Disinformation Activities
In his 2018 confirmation hearing to head U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security
Agency, General Paul K. Nakasone said, “as the most technically advanced potential adversary in
cyberspace, Russia is a full-scope cyber actor, employing sophisticated cyber operations tactics,
techniques, and procedures against U.S. and foreign military, diplomatic, and commercial targets,
as well as science and technology sectors.”107 Most observers believe the GRU is responsible for
many of these types of operations.108
Since 2008, the GRU has developed significant cyber capabilities, complementing its long-
standing experience in conducting psychological and information operations.109 The development
of GRU cyber capabilities coincided with two broader developments in Russian security and
military thinking: the role of nonviolent tools in conflict and information warfare. Since the early
2000s, Russian military doctrine has adopted an evolving view of warfare, in which the line
between peace and conflict is increasingly blurred and the utility of nonviolent tools is
increasingly important. The Russian military understands cyber operations as an effective and
relatively cheap tool (in part due to deniability and difficulty in attribution) to undermine, subvert,
and manipulate an adversary.110 Cyber tools have become an increasingly crucial component in
Russia’s efforts to accomplish a range of tasks in the larger informational struggle between
adversaries.111
Attempted Hacking of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
On March 4, 2018, former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter were exposed to a highly toxic and
potentially lethal chemical weapon agent in Salisbury, United Kingdom (UK). Russia and the GRU were quickly
blamed for the attack, despite repeated denials from Russian authorities. GRU agents eventually were identified in
Salisbury and charged for the attack. UK authorities also identified the chemical weapon as a Novichok, a class of
nerve agent developed in the Soviet Union.
To help confirm these findings, samples were sent to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) in The Hague, Netherlands. The OPCW also was investigating claims of an alleged gas attack in Syria by
the Bashar al Asad regime against the town of Douma.
On April 10, 2018, four GRU agents traveling on diplomatic passports entered the Netherlands. Between April 11
and April 12, the agents conducted reconnaissance of the area around OPCW headquarters and booked rooms at
a hotel directly next to the OPCW. Working with UK intelligence, Dutch security services arrested the four men
on April 13. Discovered in a GRU agent’s car was high-tech equipment, which could be used to hack into OPCW
Wi-Fi networks, a so-called “close access hack.” The equipment was confiscated and the agents were expelled
from the country.
The Netherlands and the UK held a joint press conference on October 4, 2018, detailing the GRU operation and
identifying the agents. At the same time, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and NATO released statements
supporting the identification of malicious cyber activity from Russia and condemned Russian actions. On the same

107 Paul Nakasone, “Advance Policy Questions for Lieutenant General Paul Nakasone, USA Nominee for Commander,
U.S. Cyber Command and Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service,” U.S. Senate Armed
Services Committee, March 1, 2018.
108 For more, see CRS In Focus IF11718, Russian Cyber Units, by Andrew S. Bowen.
109 Ellen Nakashima, “U.S. Sanctions Russian Lab That Built What Experts Say Is Potentially the World’s Deadliest
Hacking Tool,” Washington Post, October 23, 2020.
110 Timothy L. Thomas, “Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and the Military,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol.
17, no. 2 (2004), pp. 237-256; Lilly and Cheravitch, “Past, Present, and Future of Russia’s Cyber Strategy and Forces,”
pp. 130-134.
111 Stephen Blank, “Cyber War and Information War a la Russe,” in Understanding Cyber Conflict, ed. George
Perkovich and Ariel E. Levite (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2017), pp. 81-98; Michael Connell and
Sarah Vogler, “Russia’s Approach to Cyber Warfare,” CNA, March 2017; Andrew Radin, Alyssa Demus, and Krystyna
Marcinek, “Understanding Russian Subversion: Patterns, Threats, and Responses,” RAND, February 2020, pp. 12-16.
Congressional Research Service
14

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

day, the U.S. Department of Justice released indictments against seven GRU officers for the attempted OPCW
hack, as well as for hacking the World Anti-Doping Agency (and other anti-doping agencies) in 2016; the agencies
were investigating Russia’s use of performance-enhancing drugs during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. In
response to the Skripal attack and the attempted OPCW hack, more than 26 countries expelled more than 150
Russian diplomats. The UK expelled 23 diplomats; the United States expelled 60 officials and closed the Russian
consulate in Seattle and two recreational facilities allegedly used for intelligence col ection in Maryland and Long
Island.
Sources: CRS In Focus IF10962, Russia, the Skripal Poisoning, and U.S. Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack and Cory
Welt; Government of the Netherlands, “Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service Disrupts Russian
Cyber Operation Targeting OPCW,” press release, October 4, 2018; Government of the Netherlands, “Joint
Statement by Prime Minister May and Prime Minister Rutte on Cyber Activities of the Russian Military Intelligence
Service, the GRU,” press release, October 4, 2018; U.S. Department of Justice, “U.S. Charges Russian GRU
Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation Operations,” press release, October
4, 2018; U.S. v. Aleksei Sergeyevich Morenets, 2:18-cr-00263-MRH (United States District Court Western District of
Pennsylvania 2018); UK National Cyber Security Centre, “Reckless Campaign of Cyber Attacks by Russian Military
Intelligence Service Exposed,” press release, October 3, 2018; Mark Odell, “How Dutch Security Service Caught
Alleged Russian Spies,” Financial Times, October 4, 2018.
At the same time, Russian security and military doctrines view information and disinformation
operations as a crucial foreign policy tool.112 Russian authorities, and their Soviet predecessors,
have long recognized the importance of psychological operations, but their views have evolved in
recognition of the changing information landscape since the 1990s.113 The ease of access to
information presents both dangers and opportunities to Russia’s leaders.114
On the one hand, Russia’s leadership is concerned with the destabilizing effects of the free flow
of information, such as instigating popular protests and stoking societal discontent. These effects
are more dangerous due to the Russian belief that Western governments have manipulated
information to overthrow unfriendly regimes.115 During 2020 protests in Belarus against President
Alexander Lukashenko, Russian SVR chief Sergei Naryshkin accused the West of conducting a
“poorly disguised attempt to organize another ‘color revolution’ and an anti-constitutional
coup.”116 Russia sees itself as the target of such information operations, and Russia’s security and
military doctrines describe the dangers posed by foreign manipulation of domestic audiences.117

112 Roland Heickero, Emerging Cyber Threats and Russian Views on Information Warfare and Information Operations,
Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI), March 2020; Joe Cheravitch, The Role of Russia’s Military in Information
Confrontation, CNA, July 2021.
113 Herbert Romerstein, “Disinformation as a KGB Weapon in the Cold War,” Journal of Intelligence History, vol. 1,
no. 1 (2001), pp. 54–67; Thomas Rid, Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020).
114 Recent media reporting has documented the elevation of a former deputy commander of GRU Unit 55111, involved
in psychological and disinformation operations, as a scientific adviser to the Russian Security Council. Denis Dmitriev,
Alexey Kovalev, and Lilia Yapparova, “Psy-ops in High Places: Putin’s New Science Advisor to Russia’s National
Security Council Is a Military Intelligence Agent Accused of Spreading Disinformation About the Coronavirus,”
Meduza, May 17, 2021.
115 Karrie J. Koesel and Valerie J. Bunce, “Diffusion Proofing: Russian and Chinese Responses to Waves of Popular
Mobilizations Against Authoritarian Rulers,” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 11. no. 3 (2013), pp. 753-768; Dmitry
Gorenburg, “Countering Color Revolutions: Russia’s New Security Strategy and Its Implications for U.S. Policy,”
PONARS Eurasia, no. 342 (September 2014); Tracey German, “Harnessing Protest Potential: Russian Strategic Culture
and the Colored Revolutions,” Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 41, no. 4 (2020), pp. 541-563.
116 Tom Balmforth, “Russia Accuses U.S. of Promoting Revolution in Belarus, Toughens Stance,” Reuters, September
16, 2020.
117 Nicolas Bouchet, “Russia’s ‘Militarization’ of Colour Revolutions,” Center for Security Studies, Policy
Perspectives, vol. 4, no. 2 (January 2016).
Congressional Research Service
15

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

On the other hand, the use and manipulation of information provides opportunities for Russia.
Many analysts note that due to a perception by Russian policymakers that the West targets Russia
with information operations, Russian intelligence and security services in response seek to
actively disrupt and undermine the domestic politics of adversaries, while at the same time
disrupting and obfuscating any accusations of Russian culpability.118 The Russian government
seeks to manipulate domestic audiences and undermine faith in democratic systems of
government. Often, instead of seeking a particular outcome, the goal for Russian information
operations is to cause chaos and weaken the domestic legitimacy of an adversary’s
government.119
Additionally, Russia has offensively used cyber operations to further Russian foreign policy
objectives and inflict punishment on adversaries. These efforts have included offensive attacks
against foreign electrical networks, banking sectors, government institutions, and even sporting
events.120 These attacks may be in service to a range of Russian foreign policy objectives. In an
October 2020 indictment against GRU Unit 74455, U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National
Security John C. Demers stated, “No country has weaponized its cyber capabilities as maliciously
or irresponsibly as Russia, wantonly causing unprecedented damage to pursue small tactical
advantages and to satisfy fits of spite.”121
Media reporting and federal indictments indicate that to develop its cyber capabilities, the FSB
has relied on co-opting, coercing, and recruiting talented individuals from Russia’s cyber-
criminal community, often under threat of criminal prosecution.122 In contrast, the GRU
apparently has sought to cultivate talent internally and developed multiple recruiting pathways.123
Due to its history in conducting signals intelligence and disinformation operations, the GRU was
able to develop its capabilities into cyber operations.

118 Peter Pomerantsev, “Russia and the Menace of Unreality,” Atlantic, September 9, 2014; Martin Kragh and Sebastian
Asberg, “Russia’s Strategy for Influence Through Public Diplomacy and Active Measures: The Swedish Case,”
Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 40, no. 6 (2017), pp. 773-816; Clint Watts, “Russia’s Active Measures Architecture:
Task and Purpose,” Alliance for Securing Democracy, May 22, 2018; Renee Diresta and Shelby Grossman, “Potemkin
Pages and Personas: Assessing GRU Online Operations, 2014-2019,” Stanford Internet Observatory Cyber Policy
Center, 2019.
119 Reporting has linked Russian military intelligence to numerous disinformation operations, including the COVID-19
pandemic and German parliamentary elections. Observers connect many of these operations to a group referred to as
“Ghostwriter,” reportedly linked to Russian military intelligence. Mandiant, Ghostwriter Update: Cyber Espionage
Group UNC1151 Likely Conducts Ghostwriter Influence Activity, April 28, 2021; Loveday Morris, “Germany
Complains to Moscow Over Pre-Election Phishing Attacks on Politicians,” Washington Post, September 6, 2021.
120 Benjamin Jensen, Brandon Valeriano, and Ryan Maness, “Fancy Bears and Digital Trolls: Cyber Strategy with a
Russian Twist,” Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 42, no. 2 (2019), pp. 212-234; Greenberg, Sandworm, pp. 46-49.
121 U.S. Department of Justice, “Six Russian GRU Officers Charged in Connection with Worldwide Deployment of
Destructive Malware and Other Disruptive Actions in Cyberspace,” press release, October 19, 2020.
122 Soldatov and Borogan, The New Nobility, pp. 227-238; Cory Bennett, “Kremlin’s Ties to Russian Cyber Gangs Sow
US Concerns,” The Hill, October 11, 2015; Daniil Turovsky, “It’s Our Time to Serve the Motherland: How Russia’s
War in Georgia Sparked Moscow’s Modern-Day Recruitment of Criminal Hackers,” Meduza, August 7, 2018; Liliya
Yapparova, “The FSB’s Personal Hackers” Meduza, December 12, 2018; Joseph Marks, “Evil Corp Indictments Show
Cybercrime Pays—For Those At The Top,” Washington Post, December 6, 2019; Mike Eckel, “More Glimpses of
How Russian Intelligence Utilized Hackers Revealed in U.S. Trial,” RFE/RL, March 16, 2020.
123 Troianovski and Nakashima, “How Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency Became the Covert Muscle in Putin’s
Duels with the West.”
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 21 link to page 21 Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

GRU Cyber Operations and October 2020 U.S. Indictment
The GRU has conducted numerous aggressive, malicious, and wide-ranging cyber operations against multiple
targets. In 2015, GRU officers reportedly hacked the Bundestag, Germany’s national parliament. Germany issued
an arrest warrant for GRU officer Dmitry Badin, who is an accused member of Unit 26165 and indicted by the
United States for his role in 2016 election interference. In October 2020, the European Union and the United
Kingdom sanctioned Badin and GRU head Igor Kostyukov over the hack.
Also in October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted six GRU officers for a range of cyberattacks. In the
indictment, Unit 74455, identified as Sandworm, allegedly is responsible for multiple cyberattacks, including the
fol owing:

2015 attacks on Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure, Ministry of Finance, and State Treasury Service

a 2017 hack-and-leak effort targeting French President Emmanuel Macron’s emails and interference in
France’s presidential election

a 2017 malware attack, commonly known as NotPetya, which infected computers globally and caused an
estimated $10 bil ion in damage

a 2018 hacking attack against the PyeongChang Winter Olympics in South Korea, in which GRU hackers
attempting to disguise themselves as North Korean hackers used malware to disrupt the opening
ceremony

a 2018 hacking campaign against UK, European, and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons investigations into the nerve agent attack against Sergei Skripal and his daughter

a 2018-2019 cyber campaign against Georgian media companies and the Georgian parliament.
Sources: Andy Greenberg, “The US Blames Russia’s GRU for Sweeping Cyberattacks in Georgia,” Wired,
February 20, 2020; Kate Connol y, “Russian Hacking Attack on Bundestag Damaged Trust, Says Merkel,” Guardian,
May 13, 2020; Catherine Stupp, “Germany Seeks EU Sanctions for 2015 Cyberattack on Its Parliament,” Wall
Street Journal, June 11, 2020; U.S. v. Yuriy Sergeyevich Andrienko et al., 20316 (United States District Court of
Western Pennsylvania 2020); U.S. Department of Justice, “Six Russian GRU Officers Charged in Connection with
Worldwide Deployment of Destructive Malware and Other Disruptive Actions in Cyberspace,” press release,
October 19, 2020; Robin Emmott, “EU Imposes Sanctions on Russian Military Intelligence Chief,” Reuters,
October 22, 2020.
Unit 26165
Unit 26165 was established as the 85th Main Special Service Center during the Cold War,
responsible for military intelligence’s cryptography.124 Often referred to as APT 28 or Fancy
Bear, Unit 26165 is one of two units identified by the U.S. government responsible for hacking
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (see “2016 Election
Interference,” below).125

124 Lilly and Cheravitch, “Past, Present, and Future of Russia’s Cyber Strategy and Forces,” p. 145.
125 Director of National Intelligence, “Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S.
Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution,” January 6, 2017; U.S. Department of Justice, “Grand
Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election,” press release, July
13, 2018; Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation, GRIZZLY STEPPE—Russian
Malicious Cyber Activity, Joint Analysis Report, December 29, 2016; Rick Noack, “The Dutch Were a Secret U.S. Ally
in War Against Russian Hackers, Local Media Reveal,” Washington Post, January 26, 2018; Estonian Foreign
Intelligence Service, International Security and Estonia, Annual Report (2018), p. 55; Mike Eckel, “The Return of
Cozy Bear: Russian Hackers in the Crosshairs of Western Intelligence Agencies—Again,” RFE/RL, July 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
17

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Unit 74455
Unit 74455 appears to be a newer unit created to help support and expand the GRU’s cyber
capabilities.126 Unit 74455 also is known as the Main Center for Special Technologies and is
commonly referred to by media reports and the U.S. government as Sandworm. This cyber unit is
linked to some of Russia’s most brazen cyber operations, such as the 2017 NotPetya attack in
Ukraine.127 On October 19, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed indictments against six
members of Unit 74455 for attacks on various international targets (see “GRU Cyber Operations
and October 2020 Indictment,” above).
Unit 54777
This unit, also known as the 72nd Special Service Center, is reportedly responsible for the GRU’s
psychological operations.128 This includes operating in support of other GRU cyber units and
operating on the tactical level by conducting electronic warfare and psychological operations.
Media reports have linked Unit 54777 to online disinformation campaigns, specifically regarding
the COVID-19 pandemic.129
2016 Election Interference
According to U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the intelligence community (the IC,
comprising the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of
Investigation Intelligence Branch, and fourteen other statutory elements), and subsequent
investigations by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Russia conducted an extensive
effort to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.130 Then-Director of National Intelligence
Dan Coats stated, “Russia conducted an unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the
U.S. electoral and political process.”131 Congressional leadership subsequently affirmed the IC’s
assessment.132
According to Mueller and investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI),
as well as numerous media reports, Units 26165 and 74455 were directly responsible for Russia’s

126 Lilly and Cheravitch, “Past, Present, and Future of Russia’s Cyber Strategy and Forces,” pp. 145-146.
127 Ellen Nakashima, “Russian Military was Behind ‘NotPetya’ Cyberattack in Ukraine, CIA Concludes,” Washington
Post, January 12, 2018; Greenberg, Sandworm, pp. 179-220.
128 Troianovski and Nakashima, “How Russia’s Military Intelligence Agency Became the Covert Muscle in Putin’s
Duels with the West”; RFE/RL, “On the Trail of the 12 Indicted Russian Intelligence Officers.”
129 Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger, “Russian Intelligence Agencies Push Disinformation on Pandemic,” New
York Times, July 28, 2020.
130 Director of National Intelligence, “Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US
Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution,” January 6, 2017; David E. Sanger, “Putin Ordered
‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, Report Says,” New York Times, January 6, 2017; Ken Dilanian,
“Intelligence Director Says Agencies Agree on Russian Meddling,” NBC News, July 21, 2017; Special Counsel Robert
S. Mueller, III, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, U.S.
Department of Justice, vol I of II, Washington, DC, March 2019; U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, “Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threat/Vulnerabilities” in Russian Active Measures Campaigns and
Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, 116th Cong., 2020.
131 Karen Yourish and Troy Griggs, “8 U.S. Intelligence Groups Blame Russia for Meddling, but Trump Keeps
Clouding the Picture,” New York Times, August 2, 2018.
132 Michael Collins, Nicole Guadiano, and Eliza Collins, “Congressional GOP Leadership: No Doubt That Russia
Meddled in 2016 Presidential Election,” USA Today, July 17, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
18

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

“hack-and-leak” operation.133 Unit 26165 conducted an extensive effort to hack the emails and
systems of the “DCCC and DNC, as well as email accounts of individuals affiliated with the
[Hillary] Clinton Campaign.”134 These investigations document Unit 74455 as responsible for
releasing tens of thousands of the stolen documents through various fictitious online personas and
in coordination with WikiLeaks.135
According to the Special Counsel, SSCI, and the IC, beginning in March 2016, the GRU
conducted an extensive spearphishing and malware campaign to hack the networks and email
accounts of the DNC, DCCC, and Clinton campaign, including the email account of campaign
chairperson John Podesta.136 The GRU stole tens of thousands of documents and emails from
these accounts until at least September 2016.137 Using numerous social media aliases, including
“DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0,” Unit 74455 coordinated the release of stolen documents to
interfere in the 2016 election.138 According to SSCI, the GRU used these aliases to communicate
with WikiLeaks to transmit stolen documents, which WikiLeaks then released for “maximum
political impact” starting on the eve of the 2016 Democratic National Convention.139
Recent Cyber Activities
The GRU appears to be continuing and adapting its cyber operations abroad, despite numerous
indictments and the exposure of multiple operations. In September 2020, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray stated that Russia had “very active efforts” to
interfere in the 2020 elections.140 In March 2021, the Director of National Intelligence released
the IC’s assessment of foreign interference in the 2020 election. The assessment stated that
Russia conducted influence and disinformation operations but that, “Unlike in 2016, we did not
see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure.”141 The U.S.
government and media reporting implicates the GRU as central to these Russian efforts to hack
into political campaigns and U.S. government agencies.142 Further reporting and private sector

133 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in
the 2016 U.S. Election, p. 176.
134 This effort included the targeting of state and local election officials. Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, Report
on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, pp. 37, 50.
135 U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho et al., 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ (United States District Court for the District of
Columbia 2018); Thomas Rid, “How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History,” Esquire, October
20, 2016.
136 U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho et al., 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ.
137 U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho et al., 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ; U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, p. 171.
138 U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho et al., 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ; U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, pp. 183-183, 188.
139 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in
the 2016 U.S. Election, pp. 172-173, 199.
140 Kyle Cheney, “Wray Says Russia Engaged in ‘Very Active Efforts’ to Interfere in Election, Damage Biden,”
Politico, September 17, 2020.
141 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Foreign Threats to the 2020 U.S. Federal Elections, March 10, 2021,
at https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ICA-declass-16MAR21.pdf.
142 Meg Kelly and Elyse Samuels, “How Russia Weaponized Social Media, Got Caught and Escaped Consequences,”
Washington Post, November 18, 2019; Andy Greenberg, “Russia’s Fancy Bear Hackers Are Hitting US Campaign
Targets Again,” Wired, September 10, 2020; Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger, “U.S. Accuses Russian Military
Hackers of Attack on Email Servers,” New York Times, May 28, 2020; National Security Agency, “Exim Mail Transfer
Agent Actively Exploited by Russian GRU Cyber Actors,” press release, May 28, 2020; Andy Greenberg, “Russia’s
Fancy Bear Hackers Likely Penetrated a US Federal Agency,” Wired, October 1, 2020; Raphael Satter, Christopher
Congressional Research Service
19

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

cybersecurity firms alleged the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Ukrainian natural
gas company Burisma, where President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, previously was a board
member.143 Both France and Germany have publicly accused GRU cyber units of conducting
extensive and intense cyber espionage campaigns against government targets and in the run-up to
elections.144 Additionally, a cybersecurity firm has tied the GRU to attempted breaches of U.S.
critical infrastructure.145 In July 2021, a joint advisory of the National Security Agency,
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, FBI, and the UK’s National Cyber Security
Centre (NSA-CISA-NCSC-FBI) also identified Unit 26165 as conducting a “widespread,
distributed, and anonymized brute force access attempts against hundreds of government and
private sector targets worldwide.”146 The agencies described the operation beginning in mid-2019
and likely ongoing as of July 2021.147
U.S. Policy Responses and Issues for Congress148
The United States has been proactive in countering GRU operations and malign activities. The
U.S. government has demonstrated a willingness to “name and shame” the GRU and its
operations. Detailing substantial information regarding GRU personnel and operations potentially
may dissuade or deter further actions due to the high risk of public exposure.149
After the 2016 presidential election, the U.S. Department of Justice pursued three indictments
against a total of 21 GRU officers for malicious cyber activity, including interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, disinformation and information campaigns, and offensive cyber
operations leading to billions of dollars in losses.150 The indictments, issued in 2018, detail the
officers themselves; identify their units; and closely describe the operations, activities, and
methods used by the GRU.
The U.S. government also has imposed sanctions on the GRU and 21 GRU officers for the same
and additional malign activities abroad.151 Sanctions designations were made pursuant to

Bing, and Joel Schectman, “Russian Hackers Targeted California, Indiana Democratic Parties,” Reuters, October 30,
2020.
143 Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg, “Russian Hacked Ukrainian Gas Company at Center of Impeachment,”
New York Times, January 13, 2020.
144 Andy Greenberg, “France Ties Russia’s Sandworm to a Multiyear Hacking Spree,” Wired, February 15, 2021;
Loveday Morris, “Germany Complains to Moscow over Pre-Election Phishing Attacks to Politicians,” Washington
Post, September 6, 2021.
145 Andy Greenberg, “Hackers Tied to Russia’s GRU Targeted U.S. Grid for Years, Researchers Warn,” Wired,
February 24, 2021.
146 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, “NSA-CISA-NCSC-FBI Joint Cybersecurity Advisory on
Russian GRU Brute Force Campaign,” press release, July 1, 2021.
147 Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger, “After Biden Meets Putin, U.S. Exposes Details of Russian Hacking
Campaign,” New York Times, July 1, 2021.
148 This section partially draws on CRS Report R45415, U.S. Sanctions on Russia, coordinated by Cory Welt.
149 The sharing of biometric information among allies also could potentially degrade operatives’ freedom and ability to
travel and conduct operations.
150 Four GRU officers are indicted twice. U.S. Department of Justice, “Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence
Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election,” press release, July 13, 2018; U.S. Department of Justice,
“U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation
Operations,” press release, October 4, 2018; U.S. Department of Justice, “Six Russian GRU Officers Charged.”.
151 Thirteen GRU officers are both indicted and designated for sanctions. The GRU and four GRU officers are
designated twice.
Congressional Research Service
20

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Executive Order (EO) 13694, as amended, and Section 224 of the Countering Russian Influence
in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L. 115-44, Countering America’s Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act [CAATSA], Title II).152
U.S. sanctions designations against the GRU and its officers include the following:
 In December 2016, the Obama Administration designated the GRU and four
GRU officers (as well as the FSB) for activities related to election interference,
pursuant to EO 13694, as amended.153
 In March 2018, the Trump Administration designated the GRU, the four GRU
officers first designated in 2016, and two more GRU officers (as well as the FSB)
for “destructive cyberattacks,” including the 2017 NotPetya malware attack,
pursuant to Section 224 of CRIEEA. 154
 In December 2018, the Trump Administration designated nine GRU officers for
activities related to election interference; four GRU officers for cyber-enabled
operations against the World Anti-Doping Agency and the OPCW; and two GRU
officers for the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter, pursuant to
Section 224 of CRIEEA.155
Congress, the Administration, and analysts continue to debate the effectiveness of indictments
and sanctions.156 Media reporting suggests that in addition to “name and shame” strategies of
indictments and sanctions, the U.S. government has authorized more aggressive and offensive use
of cyber capabilities to thwart and deter Russian operations. Media reports allege that, over the
past few years, the United States has conducted operations to disrupt internet access from an
alleged Russian “troll farm” and conducted incursions and surveillance of Russia’s electric power
grid.157 Although not specifically directed at the GRU, these actions may be intended to signal
capabilities and potential costs, should Russia continue to conduct brazen cyber operations.
The U.S. government also appears to be increasing its communication and coordination with
private-sector actors to counter Russian and GRU cyber activity. In the October 2020 indictment
(see “GRU Cyber Operations and October 2020 U.S. Indictment,” above), U.S. Department of
Justice officials thanked “Google, including its Threat Analysis Group (TAG); Cisco, including its
Talos Intelligence Group; Facebook; and Twitter, for the assistance they provided in this
investigation.”158 Additionally, media reporting suggests U.S. Cyber Command has closely

152 Executive Order (EO) 13694 was amended by EO 13757. EO 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of
Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” 80 Federal Register 18077, April 2,
2015; EO 13757 of December 28, 2016, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to
Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” 82 Federal Register 1.
153 White House, “Fact Sheet: Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity and Harassment,” December
29, 2016.
154 U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Sanctions Russian Cyber Actors for Interference with the 2016 U.S.
Elections and Malicious Cyber-Attacks, press release, March 15, 2018.
155 Although the attack on Sergei Skripal was not cyber-related, the Office of Foreign Assets Control used Section 224
(on undermining cybersecurity) to designate these officers as agents of the previously designated GRU. U.S.
Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Targets Russian Operatives over Election Interference, World Anti-Doping
Agency Hacking, and Other Malign Activities,” press release, December 19, 2018.
156 Jack Goldsmith, “The Puzzle of the GRU Indictment,” Lawfare, October 21, 2020.
157 Ellen Nakashima, “U.S. Cyber Command Operation Disrupted Internet Access of Russian Troll Factory on Day of
2018 Midterms,” Washington Post, February 27, 2019; David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, “U.S. Escalates Online
Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid,” New York Times, June 15, 2019.
158 U.S. Department of Justice, “Six Russian GRU Officers Charged.”
Congressional Research Service
21

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

coordinated with private companies in operations against Russian disinformation and cyber
operations.159
Outlook
Congress and other interested stakeholders continue to debate the effectiveness of sanctions,
indictments, and other “name and shame” strategies to counter malign Russian military
intelligence activities. Due to its position, roles, and capabilities, the GRU prides itself on
conducting aggressive and high-risk operations. Therefore, some observers argue, specific actions
directed solely against the GRU may not have the desired level of impact. As a result, some
observers argue that the exposure of the GRU and its operations is not necessarily a deterrent, as
long as Russia’s political leadership finds it useful to have such an agency capable and willing to
conduct such operations.
Nonetheless, the exposure of GRU operations has led to some media reports of infighting among
Russian security agencies seeking to take advantage of GRU exposure, thereby undermining
Russian capabilities. After the 2018 attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal in the UK, the
United States and several allies enacted sanctions and expelled Russian diplomats and suspected
intelligence officers. Some reports suggest these measures not only created tensions within the
Russian government, which blamed the GRU for its situation, but also may have limited Russian
intelligence operations by expelling potential intelligence officers. Some observers argue that a
full range of responses targeting other actors and sectors beyond the GRU may produce, or at
least encourage, more desired Russian behavior; at the same time, it is unclear to what extent such
responses would have any bearing on the GRU’s future actions. In addition to the wide range of
options available, coordinating responses with allies could increase the costs to Russia and the
effectiveness of policy options, while isolating Russia and the GRU in response to their
aggressive actions.

Author Information

Andrew S. Bowen

Analyst in Russian and European Affairs

Acknowledgments
Cory Welt, Specialist in Russian and European Affairs, contributed valuable assistance to this report.

159 David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, “As Election Nears, Government and Tech Firms Push Back on Russia (and
Trump),” New York Times, October 20, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
22

Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46616 · VERSION 7 · UPDATED
23