The Security Circle
An IFPOD production for IFPO the very first security podcast called Security Circle. IFPO is the International Foundation for Protection Officers, and is an international security membership body that supports front line security professionals with learning and development, mental Health and wellbeing initiatives.
The Security Circle
EP 197: When War Doesn’t Look Like War — Dr John Pennell, Former Senior US Diplomat, Explains Grey Zone Warfare
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
What happens when war doesn’t look like war?
In EP 197 of The Security Circle Podcast, Yolanda welcomes Dr John Pennell, former senior US diplomat, for a revealing conversation about grey zone warfare—and how deception, disinformation, cyber threats and sabotage shape conflict beyond the conventional battlefield.
John began his Foreign Service career on 10 September 2001. His second day was 9/11. Drawing on his experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, he shares the realities of diplomacy under pressure: adapting to dangerous environments, building resilience and delivering difficult truths to senior decision-makers.
Together, they explore how states and their proxies use influence campaigns, criminal networks and threats to infrastructure to pursue their objectives while maintaining plausible deniability. From undersea cables to social media feeds, the conversation examines how these tactics reach businesses, communities and individuals.
John also considers how drones, AI and deepfakes are changing the character of warfare, why fact-checking alone may fail to change deeply held beliefs, and what the conflict in Ukraine reveals about sovereignty, technology and the challenges of finding a peaceful settlement.
An engaging episode connecting a diplomat’s extraordinary career with the security challenges of a world where the boundaries between peace and conflict are increasingly difficult to distinguish.
BIO
Dr. John A. Pennell is a contractor with the US Department of War’s (DoW) Irregular Warfare Center (IWC) as Editor-in-Chief of PRISM: The Journal of Emerging Threats | Complex Statecraft and as an Instructor, Course Developer, and Senior Scholar. He’s a Research Fellow with Arizona State University’s (ASU) Future Security Initiative and Professor of Practice with ASU’s School of Politics and Global Studies; a Non-Resident Senior Fellow with the Global & National Security Institute (GNSI) at the University of South Florida (USF); a Non-Resident Fellow with the Irregular Warfare Institute (IWI)-Europe Program; and a Senior Diplomacy Fellow with Narrative-Strategies. Dr. Pennell is also an Area Studies Course Instructor (contractor) with the US State Department’s National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC), where he teaches on East Central Europe, and a guest speaker and lecturer on information operations, hybrid warfare, and new technologies with US and international universities, the US government, and US professional military education institutions. He’s a published author, including a 2024 book on Russia’s irregular activities in Syria and Ukraine. He holds a PhD from King’s College London and masters degrees from the National War College and American University. Lastly, Dr. Pennell is a retired US Senior Foreign Service Officer (Minister-Counselor rank) with 25 years of experience in all regions of the world including in active combat and/or hybrid warfare zones.
John A. Pennell, PhD
Research Fellow, Future Security Initiative
Professor of Practice, School of Politics & Global Studies
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Global & National Security Institute (GNSI)
Non-Resident Fellow - Europe Program, Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI)
Sr. Diplomacy Fellow, Narrative-Strategies
Editor-in-Chief, PRISM: The Journal of Complex Operations
Sr. Irregular Warfare Scholar, Irregular Warfare Center
LinkedIn X
Bluesky
Book
Website
E-business card
Security Circle ⭕️ is an IFPOD production for IFPO the International Foundation of Protection Officers
If you enjoy the security circle podcast, please like share and comment or even better. Leave us a fab review We can be found on all podcast platforms. Be sure to subscribe. The security circle every Thursday. We love Thursdays.
Speaker 2Hi, I'm Yolanda And welcome to the Security Circle Podcast, produced in association with IFPO, the International Foundation for Protection Officers. This podcast is all about connection, bringing you closer to the greatest minds, boldest thinkers, trailblazers, and change makers across the security industry. Whether you are here to grow your network, spark new ideas, or simply feel more connected to the world of protection and risk, you are in the right place wherever you are listening from. Thank you for being a part of the Security Circle journey..
YoyoOkay, so what can I say? Uh, John, Dr. John, welcome to the Security Circle- Podcast. How you doing?
JohnI'm doing great. It's really, uh, great to be here, really happy to have, you hosting and have me on. It's an honor. Thank you.
YoyoWell, no, it- I think the honor is all mine to have you here. There you go. Uh, the mutual appreciation society. John, uh, you've got a rather- exciting career, uh, that you're both in and have had. foreign service officer and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. You're gonna be talking to me about your extensive career serving in diplomatic roles across most regions of the world, including combat zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as former Soviet states and the Middle East. And let's talk about your retirement from the foreign service in terms of what are you gonna do now. Did you always know you were gonna have this kind of exciting career or did it all just fall in your lap?
JohnIt's a great question. Um, so for me, growing up in the Washington, DC area where you had our seat of government, if you will, for the US, where our, you know, federal national administration, most of the offices are based there, where most foreign embassies are based as well, I was exposed to many types of people, US public servants, diplomats, and others from around the world. And also Washington, DC itself is a fairly diverse city, uh, in and of itself. And so for me, it piqued a lot of interest in doing something in public service. And then also, uh, within my family, we had some public servants as well, and seeing their dedication to doing something for the country, if you will, inspired me. Certainly my grandparents, my grandfathers in particular, both volunteered, uh, to fight in World War II, one with the Army Air Corps, which later became the Air Force, and then one with the Navy, and then a great uncle who was a Marine, and so, um, and then a- actually another uncle who was a Marine in Vietnam. So kind of all of that really shaped my thinking about finding an opportunity to serve the US in, in some fashion
Yoyodid you always know that you wanted to do that? Because I kinda did as well. I remember applying to join the British police when I was 18, and they basically said, back in the day, "Go and get some life experience and come back." And then by the age of 29, there I am, about to join, which was literally, 11 months or so after 9/11. I was one of those very patriotic, kind of really purposeful recruit- you know, recruits. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I always knew I wanted to do something for my country. Uh, did you always know that you wanted to do that?
JohnI, I did, although where I ended up wasn't necessarily on my radar, like in terms of being a foreign service officer or, a diplomat, if you will. I knew I wanted to do something, and I particularly wanted to do something outside of the US that also, um, supported the US in, in some way or, or f- fashion, if you will. But I also really like engaging with people from different backgrounds, cultures, and all of that, and also learning, you know, different languages, learning histories, et cetera, of different countries and regions. So I, I always was interested in that. But where exactly I ended up, uh, I didn't necessarily know. Interestingly enough, on my first day as a foreign service officer in training in Washington, DC, was September 10th, 2001. Oof. So one day before 9/11. Uh, I'll never forget my second day. I, I honestly don't even remember the first day, but my second day I'll always remember, because that was 9/11. And, and, uh, other foreign service colleagues, also their second day on the job, second day in training, if you will, were all grouped together in a room in Washington, DC, going through some mandatory introductory new hire types of meetings, and, uh, we had a senior official run into our room and, and talk about what just happened in New York. Um, it was a little bit unclear to many of us in the room, let alone I think around the world, what exactly was going on. Soon thereafter, he came back and said, "Another thing, uh, has happened." And then we turned the news on and saw, uh- Yeah, panic, uh, mayhem, if you will, um, not only in New York, but then reports kind of on the, the ticker at the bottom of the screen that planes may be heading towards the State Department or towards Washington, DC, et cetera, et cetera. And so at that point it was everyone must evacuate. And so that kind of set the tone for at least the early stages of my career, if not the entire career in the Foreign Service, 'cause I did end up, uh, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also worked on Somalia and Libya a- and then in Ukraine. And so, um, outside of Ukraine, most of those experiences were tied to what happened on 9/11 and countering terrorism, et cetera, et cetera. And so that had a huge impact on my career.
YoyoI should imagine it probably underpinned an awful lot of the purpose behind how you approached everything that you did. But I wanna- It did take you back to your first overseas deployment. And I'm never gonna ask you to talk about anything that's confidential, but take me through kind of where you needed to draw on your skill set, and did you feel prepared, or were you thinking, "Oh my goodness, this really is neck in, I'm up to my neck in this, it's sink or swim. I'm either gonna make this work or I'm not." What was going through your mind?
JohnSure. So before I started as a Foreign Service Officer, what we call a direct hire, US government officer, et cetera, I actually was a contractor for the US government, uh, for about two years in Ukraine, uh, working at our embassy, and that really exposed me to kind of the ins and outs, and this is just before 9/11, of what the US does overseas at a, at an embassy and how I could potentially support. Um, but as a contractor, my role was, you know, somewhat more limited and, and unique in that sense. Um, and it also meant maybe I was less prepared or less trained up, so to speak, than when I became a foreign service officer and a career officer. Um, so that let me know that particularly being exposed to, in the late '90s, Ukraine, still sort of in that post-Soviet transition period, um, and at that time I hadn't really taken any Russian lessons. I did end up studying Russian intensively in Ukraine at that time, and particularly back then, Russian was more widely spoken than maybe it is, uh, these days. Um- After that, after I joined, went through the training, 9/11 had already happened. Uh, my first assignment was in El Salvador. I spent about two and a half years there. I was supposed to be there a little bit longer. I found it a fascinating place, a fascinating country. Uh, geographically close to the US, of course. A number of people in the United States speak Spanish. I was trained in Spanish before I got there. I spoke Spanish very, very well. Made my job much easier. And while the Salvadorans are great to work with, and I learned a lot from them, I, I felt like some- something more exciting was missing, if you will. And the war in Afghanistan had already started at that point in terms of the US, uh, i- invasion and going after the Taliban and, and Al-Qaeda and all of that. And so, um, I was looking at Afghanistan from afar as, you know, maybe one day I'll serve my country by volunteering to go there. Um, then fast-forward to March 2003, um, the US invades Iraq, uh, to go after weapons of mass destruction, and I think we all know what happened after that and, uh, the whole controversy over the WMDs, if you will. Um, but they were calling on people to volunteer immediately for that. So I, I put my name, uh, in the ring, if you will. And not surprisingly, I was relatively new, relatively junior, and they thought, "Yes, let's grab p- him and people like him who are willing to volunteer." The more experienced officers in our agency at the time, while a number of them did volunteer, I think it was more the younger cohort like me who they ended up pulling from, um, for a variety of different reasons. And so after about two and a half years in, um, in El Salvador, I ended up going to Iraq, and I spent about 18 months there And, um, sorry, on that point, back to your question about did I feel like I was prepared. Um, the training that we did have to go through, which was mandatory for going to Iraq, which obviously was an active combat zone, uh, when I got there in January of 2005, that was extremely helpful, but certainly probably not sufficient as the situation in Iraq, uh, unfolded. Obviously, I think while there was some excitement at the beginning among Iraqis and others that, you know, this dictatorship was toppled, uh, things fairly rapidly went south, if you will, unfortunately. And, um, so the 18 months that I was based in Baghdad, the security situation certainly got worse, political situation got worse, and definitely made my job more difficult. And we had to adapt quite often, had to be flexible quite often. Again, while the training I had beforehand was very helpful- The only way to get the training that you need, unfortunately, oftentimes is on-the-job training. And so, um, the 18 months I was there, I, I learned when to be worried about a duck-and-cover alarm, if there's incoming indirect fire from a rocket or a mortar, if there's gunfire, if there's a car bomb. Those things, unfortunately, would happen on a fairly routine basis multiple times a day. I was based in the Green Zone, so certainly I was safer than many, um, others, and particularly in our military and other partner militaries were who were actively fighting. Um, but the Green Zone, unfortunately, not surprisingly, was a favorite target of, of many on the outside of it. And so it was quite a difficult experience, but a good one overall.
YoyoOf all the things that you've done in your career in the Foreign Service, what is the one thing that you look back on and you say, "Actually, that was a key defining moment for me," and why?
JohnThat's a great question. I certainly think the 18 months I had in Iraq were probably the most 18... Sorry, the most intense 18 months of my life, and that's saying a lot. Maybe it's not gonna be surprising to any listeners, um, given that I also spent time in Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, and other places. But it was such a difficult situation security-wise, but also Uh, mentally, um, because it really required you on a 24/7 basis to be mentally prepared for anything and everything. Um, not just because of the security environment, but because of demands from our administration back in Washington, DC for information, for, uh, achieving certain results that, uh, impacts that were set out for us. And it made it extremely demanding and, uh, e- exhausting, not surprisingly. But I think that helped me later on in my career to learn how to be more resilient, to learn how to, uh, not overdo it, when to take a break, uh, when I need to get more rest, when I need to exercise, when I need to eat better, and these types of things, which, you know, later on in my career, um, I think was really, really helpful. And I, I learned a lot from that. I think that'll stay with me, you know, for the rest of my, my life.
YoyoIt sounds like resilience has been a key theme throughout your personal journey, and even now I know that resilience is something that I pride myself on having quite a high resiliency score. But even lately I've been a bit like, "Ugh, why does that have to change? Ugh, why do I have to change that? Oh, why do I have to change stuff all the time?" Mm-hmm. And then I realize that I have obviously layers of resiliency or tolerance. But of all the things that you've done, h- talk to me, tell me a story about why it was the resilience that you have that carried you through.
JohnCertainly. So, uh, in Afghanistan, uh, where I served from 2009 to '10, I, I think in, in my view, that's probably the one year in my career where I demonstrated the most resilience. Um, obviously related to my attempts of being resilient when I was in Iraq, but, um, the difficulties and the challenges I faced in Afghanistan were, of course, it was a difficult security environment, but at that time, Kabul, in our embassy, that en- environment was relatively safer than, than it had been later on, uh, during the, uh, the war in Afghanistan. Um, but the difficulties were more on the demands from Washington and the fact that prior to the election of President Obama, Iraq had been the focus, obviously, on the first, uh, uh, George W. Bush, um, or the first two admin- uh, terms of his administration, and then things shifted under the Obama administration, mostly from prioritizing Iraq to Afghanistan. And then within that, uh, a strategy unfolded o- on counterinsurgency, and then within that, civilians like myself and many others across the US government who were, uh, working in Afghanistan had a very, very central role. Not that we didn't before. Obviously, NATO, uh, US, and, and all, uh, particular countries who are NATO partners and even non-NATO partners who were fighting in Afghanistan played a, a critical role, but civilians had to take on more of the load, if you will, in terms of thinking about counterinsurgency and what we could do with soft power, what we could do to support Afghan farmers, to potentially, uh, focus on alternative, uh, agricultural production beyond opium and poppy, which, uh, was a main source of income for the Taliban and their activities. And so, um- What I learned in that environment was how to operate effectively where the national focus of the country is solely on this, this one country more or less, and then within that, what civilians were doing, and then within that, what I was involved with in particular on the agriculture side, uh, along with many others, of course, in the military, US Department of Agriculture and elsewhere. Uh, but I had a lot thrown on my shoulders, and I think I was able to demonstrate some effectiveness in communicating and delivering results, and that allowed me to take on more responsibility quite rapidly in that environment, while at the same time, I think being confronted with some face-to-face many times, uh, for better or worse, extremely high level US government officials, uh, at very, very high levels who often would request that I brief them on developments related to what I was working on in person, and they would often come to Afghanistan and, uh, one particular person who, who is no longer with us, um, just had a, a reputation for notoriously being an extremely difficult person, and he often, uh... It was a he. He often, uh, you know, came after me pretty hard. Uh, but I, I did have support there. And so, um, I think that really helped me, and I had the support of my team, and I would often leave these meetings, um, sweating, but, uh, my colleagues telling me, "Well, you did a really, really great job, and, you know, you were really, um, the target of a lot of ire." Um, not that I or our team was doing anything wrong necessarily, but it was just the, the civilian focus on the counterinsurgency program that the US government and other partners were focused on.
YoyoIs that because... I mean, was that before the weapons of mass destruction intelligence, brand failure? 'Cause there was a huge brand failure for intelligence then. Intelligence, it took a big knock. It's just a bit like, you know, when the, the police screw up here, the police take a big knock to their brand, and you could, you... I guess you can kind of understand that if that man has got lives on the line, he is ultimately responsible for making decisions that deploy his men ultimately down the line to certain risky situations. He's like, "Is this intelligence good? Is it good? Is it good? Like, how can we rely on it?" He's looking for that reassurance. And so therefore, in your role, managing those expectations must have had to have been a very key part of your communication skill set, right?
JohnAbsolutely, uh, w-without question. So managing expectations, be honest, uh, being upfront, you know, being able to deliver bad news or difficult news, uh, even when it's not convenient. You know, this person in particular, and frankly everyone in the administration that had to engage with, were extremely intelligent people who really, you know, knew their stuff for the most part, and you had to go into these meetings, these briefings extremely well prepared. A- a- even then, there's no guarantee whatsoever that you would come out of it unscathed. Uh, often I and others would still come out of these meetings highly unscathed, just because the, the demands are so high, but the pressure for the administration, again, o- on, uh, at that very highest levels in the White House, is to, uh, deliver some results that had been openly stated by our president, uh, multiple times. And that, and that also goes for the time in Iraq, and this is something that would, uh, we'd have to deal with in any administration, in any environment. But the stakes obviously were higher in Afghanistan at that time, and also in Iraq when I was there as well.
YoyoIn fact, I had a conversation today, which is where this comes from. Sometimes when you have to deliver news that isn't favorable, and it could be that the intelligence does or doesn't support a certain type of, um, action, ultimately all you can say is, "That's where the intelligence leads us." It's, it becomes, it's not subjective then or a- anymore. It literally is, "That's where the intelligence leads us." And moment to moment you're living with what you have at that given time. There's no bigger argument for saying, "We'd love to have more," or, "We'd like to get more confirmation, but that's what we have right now." It's a very difficult situation, isn't it?
JohnAbsolutely, 100%. A- and in my role at that time in that capacity, although I was more senior at that time than when I was in Iraq, I was still relatively junior. And so, you know, me in that role as the so-called subject matter expert delivering the information on what we had and what we're doing to the best of my ability, um, and it also typically, not always, but typically it goes through many rounds of discussion at higher levels before it reaches that principle, if you will, just to make sure that everyone understands, everything is red teamed to the best that we can, and we're just prepared for those things. Um, doesn't always lead to happy people on the receiving end. It often does not But that's the best we can do.
YoyoAnd then you add in that inaction can be as harmful as action. So you think, it's like a double-edged sword. You're gonna cut yourself whichever way you're gonna go, right?
JohnRight. A- a- absolutely. Um, at the end of the day, we're all humans, and, there's only so much we can do, only so many hours in the day, et cetera. Um, can I deliver the best information and abilities that we can at a given time?
YoyoYour LinkedIn profile really piqued my attention, because you mention a couple of things, and one of them is, gray zone warfare tactics. I just know this is gonna prick up a lot of men's ears in particular. Gray zone warfare tactics, let's hear about that. What are gray zone warfare tactics?
JohnSure. So what's interesting for me is, and not necessarily all the, what I would call purists, if you will, would necessarily agree, but for me, gray zone, that concept, hybrid warfare, irregular warfare, um, political warfare, these are all a variety of different terms that I think from a scholarly perspective are each unique, even though admittedly, uh, related to another. Um, asymmetric warfare is another term as well. For me, I, I generally use those terms interchangeably. I think some would have, uh, you know, would contest that. But essentially what it is, what it means, regardless of whether you use gray zone or whether the other terms I just mentioned, is particularly tactics used by an actor, and that actor could be a state actor, could be a state-backed actor such as a proxy, or it could be a non-state actor, uh, it really doesn't matter, using a variety of techniques that are so-called below the threshold of overt active conflict, if you will. Things that could be plausibly deniable. Sometimes in the intelligence field, uh, the term is used false flag. Potentially you try to pin something on another actor who isn't involved. Um, things that are really difficult, murky to, uh, point out and attribute to one particular entity over another. And typically, uh, because it is about plausible deniability, it's about this murkiness, if you will, there's usually not, uh, a gun fired or something like that. It's typically things that are, again, when we talk about below the radar, plausibly deniable, part of in- an influence campaign. So particularly in the information domain, the cognitive domain, whatever we wanna call it, uh, disinformation, propaganda, misinformation, et cetera, all of these- Um, tools are widely used, in my view, more and more today than ever. Having said that, the information space, disinformation, deception, whatever you wanna call it, these are parts of warfare or conflict, you know, from the beginning of time. So none of that is new necessarily, but maybe some of the tools are new, some of the technologies are new, new. Uh, smartphones, et cetera. I could go on on this point.
YoyoWell, I think we talked in the pre-chat, didn't we? And I said, you know, back in the day, we, I say we being the, uh, the NATO alliance, would drop leaflets out of a plane onto villages in a number of different South American countries, including African countries, you know, with information that we wanted them to absorb, and that's only the kind of physical version of what's happening logically now with social media and misinformation and disinformation. It's just an evolution. I know it's been one of our tactics, and if you look at World War II, you know, when we worked with Eisenhower, for example, over one of the big, big battles that ultimately ended up ending the war, uh, you know, misinformation and disinformation was part of our strategy all the way through to try and let the Germans think we were gonna do something that we weren't gonna do, so we had that element of surprise. And I just- Mm-hmm I just think what we're seeing now is a far more sophisticated and targeted way, that cognitive, uh, battle that we have for our sovereignty of our brains right now is key. How are you seeing that play out as technology gets better?
John100% agree with you. It is getting more and more difficult to, I think, mitigate and counter what's been happening given the fact that a lot of these technologies are superfluous. So many folks around the world have access to the internet, let alone a smartphone, let alone the apps you could download on a smartphone, let alone, you know, 24-hour news cycles and outlets, just the variety of media outlets and so-called media outlets and information available through, again, the internet or one of the apps you can download on your phone Information is superfluous to so many people, and it's very difficult, I think, more and more for, you know, particularly as, as any actor, again, it doesn't have to be a state actor, it can be a non-state actor, uh, engaging in this disinformation, misinformation, if you will. It's very difficult for the average person to discern what is fact from fiction. Even if there is an ability to fact check the information, I think for me what is more worrisome is many people, and I think this may also just be part of human nature, but many people, if they know something that they believe and they're fi- something they read is fact checked and turns out to be not true, they may still not accept that anyway because it confirms their, you know, previously held beliefs anyway. And, and I think that's where we are today more and more, and it's getting more and more difficult for, I think, any of us to counter this. Um, there are things that we've done overseas t- to do so, of course, and they're successful, you know, to varying degrees, but, um, it's very difficult.
YoyoSo I have to add that you were part of the huge DOGE, exodus, under this current administration in 2026. Have to say that in case someone listens in two years from now. now, there are some people that don't understand what that means, so in your own words, that would be very helpful. But you've had to kind of have a rethink, haven't you, about what you're gonna do? And I can only say, and I think I told you this in the pre-chat, John, that with the DOGE exodus, I can't imagine the amount of amazing intelligence we're losing ultimately. Uh, how d- how do you think that's gonna affect things?
JohnSo I'll, I'll start by saying first I think anyone who's been a government employee would agree that how we do our work, how the government provides services, whatever that service may be, can always be more efficient, can always be improved. I generally don't think there's any debate about that. I think the question becomes, though, and this is where it was more challenging, is what's the best way to do that? And is the way we're doing that getting at the right problem? Are we addressing what the issue is or not? I think that DOGE, uh, the Department of Government Efficiency, which I understand was recently, uh, shuttered, uh, had a mandate to comb through the entire US government and identify what it found to be, in its view, using its own methodology, to be inefficiencies in terms of laws, policies, regulations. I guess probably more policies and regulations, 'cause getting into laws would require Congress, congressional involvement. But policy and regulations or particular programs the US government was funding, or personnel who were identified, for whatever reason, based on certain criteria that they came up with, with, as maybe those who wouldn't necessarily be right for the current administration. Now, certainly every administration does, regardless of party, ha- have a right to choose who its political appointees are, who its, you know, staffers are, and that happens in every administration. And in my 25 years in the foreign service, I've gone through Republican and Democratic administrations multiple times. Um, typically, though, the impact on career officers such as myself is very minimal, if at all. The only impact typically would be there's a, a, a new strategy, there's a new policy related to that strategy, or there's a new pro- program to implement the policy related to that strategy, and you, John, and/or your colleagues are gonna have to focus on that. Again, that's typical, and typically, historically, that's the only change. What was different, uh, this time was, uh, from my perspective, my view only, not everyone necessarily agree, but really at higher levels, encouraging, uh, under the rubric of, and again, whether one believes with this rubric, but under the rubric of saving taxpayer dollars that we would need to start laying off people, um, encouraging government employees to voluntarily retire or To seek options to retire early if you're not eligible to retire, et cetera. And so a number of folks did, uh, retire voluntarily. Others stayed on and were terminated or laid off. I had the option to, uh, voluntarily retire, and I chose that option. I wasn't necessarily planning on retiring at that point in time, but that's just the way things had worked out. Um, so it was extremely challenging and very different from any other change in administration that I had gone through, and I think I would say probably most of my colleagues had gone through as well.
YoyoAnd so you decided to write a book.
JohnI did, yes. So, um- Did you
Yoyohave a lot of free time on your hands?
JohnWell, uh, fun- funnily enough, this will show you how committed I am. Um, I actually, uh, wrote the book while I was still working and before... And it came out in the fall of 2024. And so, um, I'm still working full time, and it was based on my PhD thesis. I got my PhD from King's College London, uh, which is a great university, and I was really excited to, to be a student there, and I learned a lot. Um, and I did that over a roughly six-year part-time period while I was still working overseas. And so I was able to take the thesis and convert that into a book, and the book's gotten very good reviews. I'm very excited about that. And, um, it's quite, yeah, quite exciting to do that. Um, exhausting, but I had a lot of support from, uh, our ambassadors and others who I work with overseas to do it, and a lot of encouragement, so I really appreciate that from their part. So
Yoyotell me, what did you decide to write a book about?
JohnCertainly. So it was based on a mix of my practical work experience in Ukraine from 2015 to 2019, and also some of my experience in the, uh, in the Middle East. Uh, so looking at what Russia was doing in Ukraine, uh, but also in Syria. So while I was in Ukraine from 2015 to 2019, this is, uh, roughly a year or so after Russia had annexed Crimea and had been engaging in hybrid or regular warfare or gray zone warfare in eastern Ukraine, Donbas, and elsewhere across Ukraine, but also across Europe and frankly, uh, against the US a- and others as well. So being there in Kyiv at, at the time, in our embassy, seeing what was happening in real time, reading all the debates, scholarly debates, but also just in the news, the concept of hybrid warfare, you would hear that at that point probably a million times a day, kind of everywhere. And there's a lot of debate about, well, what is hybrid warfare? Where did this term come from? The idea that many espoused at the time that Russia invented a new form of warfare- Um, it really made me want to explore this further. I knew about King's, uh, from, from colleagues of mine who taught at the National War College in Washington, where I was also a student, uh, many years ago, and I really wanted to pursue that. Uh, so I did, and, uh, luckily for me, again, since I was in Ukraine working on these issues, I, I did have to get approval, and I did, uh, from our ambassador and others to, to focus on this, obviously using unclassified open source information and material, and of course, which I did. And although I wasn't able to travel to Syria, I, uh, myself, 'cause at that time, 2015 to 2016, while Russia was already engaged in Ukraine, they also started more overtly engaging in Syria, and there was a lot of concern within the US policy circle, if you will, but also NATO partners that- What is Russia doing? And they're, for the first time in many, many years, actively engaged on multiple fronts, including one outside the former Soviet space, which they had not done in quite a long time. Uh, I think not since the, their war in Afghanistan in the, in the '80s. So again, increasing interest, concern about what Russia's doing in this space. I really wanna be, uh, so really encourage myself to focus on this even more.
YoyoNo, I think it's great what you've done. And I, I was thinking while I was listening there.
JohnMm-hmm.
YoyoUh, and it's kind of, uh, provoked me. So I actually had someone say- Mm-hmm uh, someone say to me today, "Oh, you know, Yoyo, what I really like about your podcast is it's edgy and inquiring, but not too, uh, pokey." But I've got something that's a little bit pokey, all right?
JohnOkay.
YoyoUm, and I love that, not too pokey. But I understand, um, and I'm not aligning with any politic, uh, politic, po- political, political preference. But I understand that, um, the issue with Ukraine was down to a contractual agreement being broken. Putin made it very clear that there was to be no bordering country, no bordering nation that was formerly USSR was to ever become a member of NATO. But one of the previous, um, presidents, invited the Ukraine to become a member of NATO, and that that was the stimulus for the whole of this shit show that we're in at the moment- Right with money just being thrown at, now we understand it to be drone warfare. There's not even, you know, it's not even man on man, human on human. Mm-hmm. This is typically, it's like I'm feeling like it's a stage for people to just watch what's gonna happen here, and how does this technology work. It's like if you could get defense contractors to get their ideal wish, it would be, "Do you know what? There's a stage here. Come watch it. You'll see how all our drones work." I'm just being quite skeptical, but- Mm-hmm there's gonna be no end to this unless... Gene Roddenberry wrote about this in Star Trek when- Mm-hmm humans were plucked out with a bracelet to go and stand in a incinerator, and their life would be made extinct. And the moral of the story of that episode was that unless you're getting bloody, and that you're feeling the emotions of war and what it really means, you're never gonna be incentivized to stop it. And we're in this perpetuating cycle now with the Ukraine. And so you can see why my brain is thinking this. What are you thinking?
JohnSure. So, um, this is definitely a more pokey question compared to some of the ear- earlier ones. So particularly the, the first part of it about, the US and the USSR having an agreement that, um, US would not support any former Soviet states becoming NATO members. I think from the US perspective, there was no such agreement. I think obviously from the Kremlin, Moscow, Putin perspective, there was Obviously, I, I wasn't in the room when any conversations such as those may or may not have taken place, but I certainly don't believe at all that that's the US perspective. The other thing I, I think is important to highlight here is that Ukraine is an independent sovereign state, as is Moldova, as is Georgia, et cetera, et cetera. And so just from my perspective, even if I weren't a former government official that served in Ukraine, et cetera, I would think as somebody who believes in the concept of democracy, that if an independent sovereign state wants to pursue NATO membership, for example, in this context, you're, you know, a country in the EU... or sorry, in the European, uh, continent. If they wanted to do that, they should have the right to do so, and obviously there are certain standards and certain requirements that have to be met before they can become so. So, uh, you know, I, I, I understand that that is the narrative out of Moscow a- and many backers. I, I, I don't believe that that is, is the case, and then even if it were, uh, I don't believe anything was formally signed at all, and I certainly don't think anyone in US government believes that either. On the-
YoyoBeaut- beautifully answered. Now to the
Johnsecond part- about
Yoyothe drone stage.
JohnYes. Yes, yes, definitely. Now, on the second part, so on the technology front, before talking about drones specifically, on the disinformation, misinformation front, we talked about new technology, like the smartphones and what that can provide in terms of downloading certain apps or going on the internet, et cetera. I didn't mention AI. I, I didn't mention cyber and how... and using those types of tools can also facilitate deep fakes, whether those are audios or videos, et cetera.
YoyoYeah.
JohnAnd I think we see on a daily basis how AI-enhanced videos or produced videos, it, it's increasingly difficult to discern what is real, what's fact from fiction, if you will. Yeah. On the drone front, um, I fully agree with the concept that Ukraine is providing an opportunity for the US and others to See how it, it's advancing this technology and its defense, and how the US and others can learn from that. Obviously, adversaries of the US, the UK, NATO, et cetera, are also learning. They're also watching very closely, uh, what's going on. Um, but I think taking a few steps back further from that, uh, to the point you made about this war seemingly just never ending and just continuing and continuing, where is the end in sight? I think both from the Ukrainian perspective and from the Russian regime perspective, this war is existential on both fronts. Um, for Ukraine, this is about their nationhood, it's about their sovereignty, it's about their independence as a, a separate nation state. I think for the Kremlin, although I would also imagine, I know there's been polling done on this before, I think many Russians, the average Russian may also have a s- certain view of U- Ukraine, which may be different from, from myself or, or others in the West. But Ukraine's success in this war really undermines, in my view, the regime stability, and Putin in particular. And so based on that, I think the, the question we have to think about is, if both sides see the war as existential, uh, to each other, it's a great question to ask, where does it ever end? Um-
YoyoDo, do you know where I think it does end? Tell me. I think it ends, it either ends when the money runs out, or it ends when a way can be found for both sides to cease without losing pride and face
JohnTrue. I, I think in any, ultimately, I think we're all hoping for a peaceful settlement for sure, and, um, hopefully that will come sooner than later of course. I, I know Ukrainians are suffering from, you know, the daily, numerous daily attacks, particularly on energy infrastructure, but also on civilian infrastructure as well. And, uh, Ukraine is heavily reliant on support from the US and others. Um, but again, to your point about the drones, they're making incredible advances in drone technology, but other technology as well, uh, military technology that I think indicates Or as another example of what I would refer to as the changing character of warfare rather than the nature, if you will.
YoyoYeah.
JohnAnd it goes back to your initial question about gray zone. Um, while drones are, uh, engaged in, I mean, not all drones of course, but in this context, drones are engaged in actual kinetic or military or hard power activity, um- They're another example of 21st century warfare where you don't necessarily need to have boots on the ground 24/7 engaging in what we would normally think of like World War II style, uh, combat with tanks and formations and all of that. Certainly, that has occurred in this war, but I think we see more and more that technology can be used as a proxy for actual traditional combatants for engaging. Again, these drones have some command and control, um, from civilians, if you will, but with AI, they're increasingly becoming more autonomous, and that, that is a whole other issue, uh, coming up very, very soon. Um, but I think it's an indication of how warfare today is not just solely boots on the ground with guns, tanks, et cetera, or missiles. Those are still important, but there's many other things that can be done. Same thing with an influence campaign. If you wanna shape a behavior or a decision by a particular target, you can use social media as a platform for disinformation or out different media outlets, if you will, that you would watch on TV, what have you. Let alone AI and cyber enabling deep fakes as well. Any of this, and often in unison or combined together to varying degrees, is used in the so-called battlefield of today. And from my perspective, Russia has been quite good at it, uh, over the years. I think Ukraine's become much better at, at it themselves and at combating what Russia's been doing. Um, I think the initial, Russia's initial foray into Ukraine in, in 2014, I think initially caught some people off guard and, and took folks by surprise, both in Ukraine and in the US and, and kind of within our NATO allies. But I think we've gotten much smarter on this and how to deal with it and combat it. Not at all to say that we've solved it. We h- we still have a lot, a lot to learn, but I do see Ukraine and what they're doing as an opportunity for, for us to learn from to try to adapt kinda going forward the way we also engage in, in conflict.
YoyoI'd like to definitely take this opportunity to explain that the United Kingdom right now is, uh, suffering with the gray zones on your regular warfare, uh, pattern. Um, we talked about the disruption to infrastructure. So what's happening is, um- The, this, oh, how do I even start? But I, we talked about how they are using the cell-type structure for a r- for engaging criminal groups to carry out specific targets on our infrastructure. In fact, including our, our prime minister. Our former prime minister, Keir Starmer, had received a direct attack. And you combine that with the, the threats to our general, um, fiber cabling as well, uh, the cybersecurity attacks that are notoriously Russian footprint, and then the, you know, the ship up off the north coast of Scotland where all of our- Mm-hmm you know, our, our, well, that's where our nuclear base is anyway, but how they're mapping our, uh, seabed infrastructure. Uh, "Oh, no, we're just here. We're, we're on a little, uh, training mission." Really? No, bugger off. Uh, you're not supposed to be here. But I'm seeing all this narrative going around like, um, I'm gonna really exaggerate here, but rather than point guns at each other, we're doing this kind of like, "We'd really appreciate it that you weren't sailing in that area. Um, and, and please can you remove yourself from our airspace? It's really not good etiquette." You know? It's like- there's all of this very- Yeah flowery language because they're doing everything but escalating. They are communicating, but keeping the de-escalation very firm with very specific language, aren't they?
JohnYes. Um, and that's something else we hadn't gotten to, and so I'm glad you brought that up.
YoyoGood.
JohnKind of the maritime domain, domain, particularly the undersea cables, um, not only off the coast of Scotland or the UK, but, but also around the Baltics as well, and elsewhere. We know the PRC's been active in some of these types of activities as well, like in the South China Sea and, and elsewhere- Yeah and in the Pacific, Indo-Pacific. Um- It's just another element again of the gray zone, if you will, the plausible deniability. Is it that they're really there to cut cables or monitor and listen what's happening, or are they doing something else, or maybe they're doing a little bit of both? Etiquette is great, uh, and I am very, um, humbled by British et- etiquette in general, but I, I, I think this is one of those situations where maybe m- more directness and less etiquette could be more helpful. Well, you should see
Yoyome after a few ciders. I don't have a lot of etiquette then.
JohnNo, no, exactly. I become a pirate. But just in terms of, um, you know, uh, UK policy, and you mentioned, you know, criminal gangs a- and others who are y- who are being used by the Kremlin, if you will, to engage in some of these activities. That's another example of this 21st century gray zone warfare, if you will, using proxies. And a proxy could be a drone, if you will, let alone a human being. And a- as a person, it could be a criminal gang, somebody who is a sympathizer. Um, 'cause we know in, since 2014, uh, at least prior to 2022, there were, uh, a number of forces or volunteers, if you will, from outside of, of Russia who went to Ukraine to fight on Russia's side, you know, from Chechnya, from Syria, a- and many other places. So you will find those sympathizers in these types of situations too. I, I think it's, it's really a tactic of Trying any and all tactics and seeing what works, seeing what sticks first, if you will. And Russia's been doing this not only in the UK, but across the European continent, uh, sabotage operations, assassination attempts. Yeah. You know, going after firms that support Ukraine in one fashion or another through, uh, you know, arms or other, you know, Ukrainian cultural centers or restaurants, et cetera, et cetera. It's kind... Any and all things are part of the, the target, uh, base, if you will.
YoyoAnd the assassination attempt of the Ukrainian mogul, they called it, in Monaco, was unprecedented. Mm-hmm. That's kind of- Right James Bond stuff, right? Um, because even Monaco were kind of like, "What the hell?" I mean, it would've been it with- Mm a more French accent. But, uh, they- Mm they ultimately, what I've noticed is actually that there's been very little conversation other than the reporting of the incident. It's gone on radio silence. And you'll notice- Right these things probably do. There's an awful lot more going on behind the scenes, I'm sure.
JohnRight. But, but also even the UK, uh, I guess back in 20- I remember it was 2016 or '17, the Skripal attack.
YoyoYeah.
JohnUm, and we've seen that type of activity in other places. When I was in Ukraine, there were assassinations of, uh, uh, Russian defectors, if you will, from, from their own Duma, their parliament, uh, let alone others. Anyone who was opposed to Russia's actions in Ukraine was a potential target. A- and a lot of times this would happen in public streets during daytime, uh, in Kyiv itself.
YoyoYeah.
JohnUm, and, and also hadn't mentioned yet, as another element of gray zone, focusing on Russia as an example, interference in elections across the European continent, funding of certain political parties, um, politicians, et cetera. And not necessarily those from one part of the spectrum or another, it's- Any and all who may either support Russian objectives or create chaos, instability, discord, what have you, in a particular society, which then kind of makes them more susceptible and less open maybe to supporting Ukraine, um, and more, more susceptible to, to Russian interference, if you will.
YoyoBut this isn't new either, 'cause I was... W- I, I watch a lot of film noir, right? Mm-hmm. Love it. Uh, those were the days, yeah, the 1940s- black and white movies- Right with a bit of suspense- Yeah and romance. Um-
JohnMm-hmm
Yoyoand there's a particular, um, film director called John Barry, and ultimately he was- Mm-hmm ostracized from the United States and accused of being a communist. And, and, and this was back then, and I'm thinking, what did communism really have anything to offer back in the 1940s? What was that all about? Right. Because there was quite a lot of bad. Like, gosh, if you sympathize with communists or, you know, or, or even if you thought, "Well, you know, Marxism's got a point, and capitalism's got a good- Mm-hmm uh, thing to offer, but communists- communism is good because of this," and then all of a sudden you're a communist. Or you go to a communism meeting to learn about it, and then you're a communist. What's, what was going on then? Mm-hmm. 'Cause that felt a bit more... It felt like there was a bit more going on than, than the surface. I don't believe these people were trying to defect or reject the United States in any way. Bit, bit of a question that's a bit left of bang, that one.
JohnYeah. It, it's, um, you know, there was that, I think in the US we called it the Red Scare, um, era, if you will, which I think lasted quite a long time- Yeah um, going after people they accused of, you know, with or without evidence or maybe questionable evidence of being sympathizers or actual, you know, Communist Party members. Um, that was, that was a difficult period particularly. I, I wasn't around at that time, but obviously- No, you don't
Yoyolook like you were.
JohnNo, but, um, yeah, I, I, and I think that's something that potentially could still happen today, not necessarily in the US, but in many, many places, this, uh, perception that, um, somebody who may or may not espouse similar views may, um, be somebody you wanna target for, for a particular activity. Um, obviously there, there were some folks who were found to be, uh, trying to actively overthrow the US government and, and I think in those cases, they, they were lawfully, uh, detained and/or, and/or dealt with it, uh, if you will. But, um, I think that the point you made at the beginning, too, I think is also, uh, of that last part, um, about the newness or lack thereof and going back to the '40s, I think that's also extremely critical.
YoyoMm.
JohnThat while, you know, here we are today in 2026, we're talking about Ukraine war and other things- The concepts of deception, plausible deniability, uh, maskirovka, as the Russians would call it themselves, um, false flags, uh, non-attribution, none of this is new whatsoever. I think what is new, though, is the use of these technologies that we discussed, and using them, but to achieve the same, maybe more traditional non-new effects, if you will.
YoyoDo you know what it feels like? Like persuasion. It feels like- I guess imagine this. We're neighbors- Mm-hmm and there's a big fence between us. Uh- Mm-hmm it's a wooden fence. And over the years, you know, I, I kept noticing these little holes in my fence, and, like, every time I go to the fence and, you know, no matter how, I never see anyone there. I never see the holes being created. But the- Mm-hmm the holes are appearing, more holes. And then, and before you know it, you know, the, the, the neighbor's pets are being able to go through the, the, the holes in the fence. And, and if you move along a bit it's like we've got Ring camera- Mm-hmm doorbell cameras there. Right. And it's like, "Yeah, I can see who's actually c- creating the holes." Mm-hmm. And I'm like, "Yeah, can you stop making the holes, please?" And then they're like, "No, we're not gonna stop making the holes. We're just gonna go, like, a little bit passive-aggressive and not reply at all, but we're gonna keep making- Mm-hmm the holes in the fence." And I feel like that's where we're at. Like, we can actually see everything that's going on, uh, and- Right there's a kind of almost like a tolerance. So my question to you, with all of your experience, and I know this is a really tough question. At what point does someone turn round and say, "Right, this shit needs to stop now"? Or-
JohnGreat question. Yeah, so-
YoyoIs everyone benefiting from this?
JohnGreat question. Um Back to the technology issue, it's certainly great to be able to have a smartphone and communicate more easily with family or friends or, or colleagues. Um, on the other hand, I, and I think maybe yourself and maybe many others, probably find ourselves with our, the phone in our hand all the time and can't have it out of our hand or can't be using this technology. We wouldn't, we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves. Um, that's not a good thing, of course. And it's always easier said than done, but I do think we're at a point where there's oversaturation of information because of these different tools.
YoyoYeah.
JohnAnd, or even surveillance and the opportunity to surveil because of Ring cameras or Google Nest or whatever you have, uh, at, at your home. Um, but you do have to wonder, um, kind of where, where am I now as a person? Where am I going? Uh, there's an app, uh, that monitors minute by minute in your geographic area no matter where you go in the US, you can download it on your phone for free, that lets you know if there's a break-in, if there's a robbery, if there's a car crash, if something bad is happening. And you could spend your entire day just looking at that and maybe... And it tells you the location freaking out, like, "Am I in a safe neighborhood?" And then for me, because I, I do sometimes look at that app- I remind myself that anywhere in the US, probably in most places of the world, if you had that app, you might see the same thing. Um, if you didn't have that app, would you be okay with it, not knowing? And so I, I think the issue is gonna be at some point with the oversaturation, when is enough is enough, and we need to take our time to, to step away a little bit.
YoyoYou know what? It's having that power cut. It's having- Mm-hmm that mobile phone run out of battery. It's taking- Mm-hmm that, uh, digital break, that digital- Mm-hmm vacation, and then realizing actually you don't need that stuff to function, that it's a novelty. Exactly. And it's a bit like, you know, we had this annoying ringtone called the frog. I think it was, I don't know- Mm 2016 or something, went ding, da-ding, ding- Mm-hmm ding, ding, ding. Like, everybody had it. Yeah. And then all of a sudden it was just like a novelty. It just, like, blew over really, really quickly. I don't even wanna do another impression of it 'cause it will just l- be like a bee- in people's heads, and they will just- Mm-hmm be like ding, da-ding, ding, ding, ding. Everyone's gonna have
Johnit. I'm gonna have to look it up.
YoyoIt's dreadful. Um, but listen- Mm-hmm uh, finally, what's coming up for you now? More books? More professorships? Uh, what, what... And, and the other question I wanted to ask you is what are the students most interested in hearing about from you?
JohnSure. So for me, um, going through and publishing one book was quite a heavy lift. I probably don't see myself doing that again. I, I never thought I would write a book. I'm glad that I did. Um, but certainly continuing to write maybe articles that get published in different academic journals or, um, you know, I've been working for the Department of Defense, or Department of War as it's now called in the US- Yeah a- as a contractor and doing quite a lot with them on a number of different issues, including some teaching. Um, but I definitely want to do more, uh, teaching as well at ASU and possibly other places. I've also been doing a lot of guest lectures at a number of, uh, US, uh- Public and private universities, uh, US military institutions, and all that. And, and actually, in just a couple of weeks, I'll be in Tampa, Florida, at, uh, our Special Operations Command, which has within it what's, uh, called the Joint Special Operations University, or JSOU. And I'll be teaching, uh, as lead instructor there with some, uh, former military colleagues, a course on how to conduct an inter-agency, so meaning all elements of the US government or a government, a integrated inter-agency, sorry, saying that twice, a, a regular warfare campaign. So that sounds nefarious and like word soup. What does that actually mean? So really about, particularly based on my career, how different elements of US government work together and should work together more effectively in a situation where you're dealing with an irregular gray zone hybrid threat, whether that's coming from Russia, from China, what have you. And so I'm really, really excited about that. And then the last part of your question about what the students look for or are interested in, I think mostly my experience as a practitioner for so long, and then also kinda how to get their foot in the door, so to speak, and any advice I have about doing that. So I'm more than happy to do that. I get contacted quite a bit on LinkedIn about that sort of thing, so it's great.
YoyoWell, let me know if you ever get invited back to King's College. We'll have to- I will set up a coffee or-
JohnYes, absolutely
Yoyoor a very British cup of tea.
JohnWell, I'm, I'm a big tea fan. I'm actually more of a tea drinker than coffee drinker, so.
YoyoPerfect. I've really enjoyed- Yes our conversation today- Likewise Dr. John Pennil. Thank you so much for joining me on The Security Circle- Thank you, Tina podcast.
JohnBeen great. Thank you.