[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 25, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1813-S1814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Russia

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for some reason, the Presiding Officer has 
drawn the short straw to be the Presiding Officer during my daily or 
frequent speeches here on the floor, though I appreciate your patience 
and indulgence.
  This morning I come to the floor to talk about the Intelligence 
Committee's ``Worldwide Threats'' hearing that is ongoing now in the 
Hart Office Building. We have all the leaders of the intelligence 
community, including the Director of National Intelligence, there.
  We hold this hearing once a year. It serves as an important reminder 
of where the United States stands in terms of the rest of the world and 
what you should be concerned about and what we should protect against.
  Key among the threats that have been testified to already in open 
session--and we will be going to a closed, classified session here 
shortly--but key among the threats discussed this morning was the 
threat of Russia.
  Russia is engaged, of course, in an ongoing hot war with Ukraine, a 
conflict that President Trump is rightly seeking to end. While this is 
perhaps toward the forefront of many people's minds when they think 
about Russia, it is not the only threat Russia poses to the West, and I 
use the term ``West'' advisedly. That is not just the United States. 
That includes the United States, but it is far broader than that.
  Some have described--and I think even the Director of National 
Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, this morning confirmed--that Russia is 
engaged in a shadow war against the West.
  One of the ways that they have engaged in this shadow war is through 
sabotage. That, again, was also confirmed by the Director of National 
Intelligence this morning. She said these have included attacks against 
transportation targets like trains, airplanes, and other vehicles, 
attacks against government and military targets. And some of these 
attacks have been directed toward critical infrastructure like 
pipelines, undersea fiberoptic cables, and the electric grid.
  Russia has also targeted industries like defense companies and the 
leaders of such companies that support their adversaries. These attacks 
have accelerated in recent years.
  Between 2022 and 2023, Russia has quadrupled its orchestrated 
sabotage attacks in Europe. And then they nearly tripled again in 2024.
  And while this behavior has escalated in recent years, it should come 
as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Russian history or the 
history of Russian actions when it comes to their adversaries.
  Given Russia's geography, it has always been part of their strategy 
to extend their westernmost border to provide a larger buffer and a 
smaller border for Moscow to have to defend. But above and beyond their 
history of aggressive expansionism, trying to restore, really, the now-
collapsed Soviet Union, Russia also has a history of using tactics 
outside of conventional warfare.
  These are tactics that advance Russia's strategic interests and 
weaken those of its adversaries but may not rise to the level that 
would merit countermeasures by the target of these efforts.
  The Soviet Union, the predecessor to the Russian Federation, has 
historically heavily relied upon such tactics during the Cold War; for 
example, the KGB, which was the name of the premier Russian 
intelligence agency back during the Cold War. The KGB led a campaign to 
influence public opinion among certain populations to advance Soviet 
interests. And, of course, that has continued today under Vladimir 
Putin and the Russian Federation.
  One of the reasons the KGB and now the modern intelligence agencies 
of the Russian Federation use these methods is they do not necessarily 
trigger article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreement. 
Article 5 is the agreement that an attack against one member of NATO 
will be considered an attack against all, which is why it is called a 
collective defense agreement. And the United States, of course, is one 
of the signatories to that North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.
  And one of the risks of Russia triggering article 5 is that it would 
necessarily risk a broader war, regional or even worse. And, of course, 
I know we are all acutely aware of the dangers posed by any country 
triggering article 5 of NATO.
  This is, in part, why President Trump has rightly insisted that our 
NATO allies increase their defense spending in line with their NATO 
commitments. It is just not fair or appropriate or, actually, in NATO's 
self-interest for those countries to depend entirely on the United 
States, which is why President Trump has said the 2 percent of GDP 
defense spending requirement is really out of date and that really NATO 
countries should be spending somewhere closer to 5 percent of their 
gross domestic product on their defense. Again, that is also to relieve 
the burden on the American taxpayer who has been picking up the tab for 
far too long.
  And we see the success that President Trump has had by urging our 
NATO allies to provide more for their self-defense, with France and 
Germany leading the charge to reinvigorate their defense budgets. That 
is encouraging, but it takes time. But it needs to start, and it has 
already started.
  But in any case, it is clear that Russia is concerned about anything 
that might trigger article 5 treaty obligations. Russia, in fact, knows 
that in a conventional war, it is no match for the West or NATO. And so 
they resort to behind-the-scenes activities to indirectly advance their 
own interests and harm those interests of their adversaries without 
triggering a reaction from the West.

  Now, some of these are the reasons why--because Russia knows that it 
cannot win a conventional war in Europe, were one to break out, is why 
it continues to rattle the nuclear saber and why Putin, over and over 
and over again, threatens the possibility of the use of tactical 
nuclear weapons, which, of course, would be catastrophic for everybody 
involved.
  Some of my colleagues may be familiar--I am sure the public is--with 
the analogy of a frog in boiling water. If you drop a frog in a pot of 
boiling water, it will immediately jump out, but if you put a frog in a 
pot of lukewarm water, you can slowly acclimate the frog to that 
temperature and it will not jump out. But, of course, once the water 
comes to a boil again, it will kill the frog and, obviously, be too 
late.
  That analogy, I believe, applies to the threat that Russia continues 
to pose to the United States and our friends and allies around the 
world.
  This could, in fact, be the West, if we are not vigilant, because we 
know that the approach and the tactics and the intentions of the 
Russian Federation have really not changed over time.

[[Page S1814]]

  They are slowly, however, turning up the temperature to weaken us and 
perhaps to lull us into complacency. But this is not the only tactic 
that Russia has employed in its war against the West. They also have a 
history of more blatant war crimes.
  In 2014, Russia violated its commitments in the 1994 Budapest 
Memorandum by annexing Crimea, which is part of Ukraine. The Budapest 
Memorandum, which, again, was dated in 1994, was a treaty signed by 
Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Under this 
agreement, Ukraine, which had become newly independent after the fall 
of the Soviet Union, Ukraine would dispose of its nuclear arsenal in 
exchange for an agreement to protect its territorial integrity and 
independence.
  And at the time, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear weapons 
stockpile in the world. So it was certainly in the interest of the 
United States and world peace to see Ukraine dispose of that nuclear 
stockpile.
  But then, again, in 2022, Russia violated its commitments under the 
Budapest Memorandum by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 
These actions are a clear signal to the West that Russia has a history 
of reneging on its agreements and simply cannot be trusted.
  And so the task at hand for the West, including the United States, is 
to reestablish deterrence of Russia and to make sure that we do 
everything we can to disincentivize them from continuing this long 
train of abuses.
  And, of course, one of the consequences of rising feelings of 
insecurity in Europe is that now you have countries like Poland talking 
about acquiring nuclear weapons. You have the incoming chancellor of 
Germany saying that perhaps the UK and Germany should share its nuclear 
weapons with Ukraine.
  Now, I had the chance to question the head of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, and I asked whether this threat of proliferation 
of nuclear weapons made the world a more dangerous place. It seems like 
an obvious question. But, of course, he confirmed that that would be 
the case.
  So proliferation of nuclear weapons in Europe is a bad thing and 
something we ought to seek to avoid at all costs. So I know President 
Trump has a big task in front of him, and I personally will do 
everything I can to support his efforts.
  But we need to reestablish deterrence without seeing nuclear weapons 
proliferate, which will, in fact, make the world more dangerous and not 
safer.
  As I have said before, and I think is obvious to all of us, we are 
living in the most dangerous time since World War II. And, certainly, 
this morning's hearing on the world threat assessment before the 
leaders of the intelligence community have driven home this reality and 
confirmed what we already knew.