The landscape of Western intelligence cooperation is going through a phase of profound transformation, characterized by symptomatic episodes that deserve careful attention. decoding.
Two seemingly separate events – the “Chatgate” case and tensions within the alliance Five Eyes - they actually constitute complementary manifestations of the same crisis of confidence that is redefining the parameters of inter-allied relations.
The "Chatgate" incident is an example of the vulnerability inherent in so-called "cell phone diplomacy." The accidental inclusion of a journalist in a classified group chat exposed critical national security information, revealing how the technological dimension can compromise established security structures. This episode is not merely an isolated incident, but rather the expression of a systemic contradiction: the adoption of informal communication channels in the context of strategic decisions entails structural risks that transcend individual human error.
The triple criticality highlighted – vulnerability to human error, loss of traceability and control, false sense of security induced by the informality of communications – configures a problematic paradigm that erodes the very foundations of inter-allied cooperation. The observation of the high Western official according to which such episodes generate questions on the shareability of sensitive information reveals the psychological dimension of the phenomenon: confidence, a constitutive element of alliances, is subjected to tensions that threaten its integrity.
In parallel, the prospect of a "Four Eyes" configuration – with the selective exclusion of the United States from certain information flows – signals an even deeper fracture. We are witnessing a metamorphosis of the alliance Five Eyes, historically founded on the principle of unconditional intelligence sharing, towards a variable geometry model that reflects new trust hierarchies.
This evolution represents a break with the traditional paradigm: the passage from an absolute and undifferentiated trust to a "conditional trust" based on contingent evaluations. The fact that powers such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand consider the creation of a parallel channel of information exchange reveals the emergence of a pragmatic approach to inter-allied relations, in which sharing becomes selective and instrumental.
A particularly alarming aspect of this evolution concerns the potential rift between political and military structures within the US system. The persistence of leaks and diplomatic embarrassments generated by the American political leadership introduces an element of worrying destabilization into the Western institutional architecture.
If the political leaders of the United States continue to demonstrate vulnerabilities in the management of classified affairs, a concrete and systemic risk looms: the possibility that the military and intelligence apparatus, driven by concerns related to operational security and the preservation of strategic alliances, will develop parallel decision-making mechanisms that exclude, de facto if not de jure, the political components of the deliberative processes on national and international security matters.
This hypothesis of a "functional detachment" between the two decision-making levels represents a scenario of exceptional gravity for at least three reasons:
- Erosion of democratic control over security apparatusThe fundamental principle of civilian primacy over the armed forces, the cornerstone of Western democracies since the Second World War, would be compromised through practices of information and decision-making compartmentalization which, while not assuming the explicit forms of a coup d'état, would partially reproduce its destabilizing effects. We would witness a peculiar form of "silent coup", characterized not by the violent replacement of leadership, but by its progressive irrelevance in strategic decision-making processes.
- Fragmentation of strategic coherence: The emergence of parallel decision-making channels would inevitably lead to a loss of cohesion in the articulation of American national strategy, with significant repercussions on the transatlantic balance. The discrepancy between official political orientations and operational practices of the military apparatus could generate contradictory signals to allies and adversaries, further complicating the already delicate contemporary geopolitical balance.
- Alteration of inter-allied balances: A situation of this kind would place the United States' partners in front of an unprecedented strategic dilemma. With which American interlocutors should they coordinate their actions? Which level should they consider truly representative of the US strategic will? The answer to these questions could lead some nations to privilege relations with the technical-military apparatuses over their political counterparts, further accentuating the institutional drift.
Historically, similar phenomena have manifested themselves in contexts of profound crisis of political legitimacy. The American case would however present peculiar characteristics, configuring itself not as a traumatic rupture of the constitutional order, but rather as a gradual re-articulation of decision-making powers motivated by functional imperatives of operational security and preservation of alliances. Such an evolution, although formally respectful of the institutions, would profoundly alter their substance, introducing dynamics of "double state" in which the formal and substantial structures would diverge significantly.
The integrated analysis of these phenomena suggests the emergence of a new balance in cooperation between Western allies, characterized by greater pragmatism and less trust-based automatism. The imperative to strengthen digital security procedures, redefine the principles of intelligence sharing, and politically manage divergences without producing irreversible fractures outlines the coordinates of an ongoing process of adaptation.
To avoid the institutional drift outlined above, an intervention on multiple levels appears essential:
- Re-establishment of rigorous internal communication protocols: Western political leaderships, starting with the United States, need to adopt communication procedures that guarantee not only the security of sensitive content, but also the predictability and reliability of chains of command. This implies definitively overcoming the paradigm of "cell phone diplomacy" in favor of structured institutional channels.
- Explicit definition of the boundaries of information sharing: Overcoming the crisis of confidence within the Five Eyes requires an open discussion on the limits of sharing and on possible exceptions, avoiding that unilateral decisions generate defensive chain reactions among the allies. This clarification process must necessarily involve both the political and military components, restoring an operational harmony that is currently compromised.
- Structured and multi-level inter-allied coordination mechanismsThe risk of decision-making fragmentation within the Western bloc requires the creation of permanent forums of confrontation that simultaneously involve the political and military leaderships of the allied countries, overcoming the current compartmentalization that facilitates dynamics of selective exclusion.
Western democracies are therefore faced with the need to reshape their cooperation mechanisms, balancing the need for information protection with that of maintaining strategic unity. The challenge is to transform these tensions into opportunities for more conscious and resilient cooperation, where technology and trust interact in more sophisticated and secure ways.
This transition does not necessarily represent the decline of the Western alliance, but rather its evolution towards more articulated and complex forms, in which the implicit pact of loyalty that has constituted its linchpin for decades is renegotiated in light of the new geopolitical and technological challenges of the 21st century.
What is at stake transcends mere operational efficiency, directly affecting the very nature of democratic regimes and their ability to preserve the constitutional balance between civil and military apparatuses even in contexts of increasing strategic uncertainty.
* (in the SkyTg24 photogram) vice president of the Italian Subsidiary Security Association, national head of the CyberSecurity department
