| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Why did the Americans reveal CIA operations in Ukraine and what did they choose to forget about? |
| 2024-02-29 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Ilya Ropshin [REGNUM] The publication of The New York Times, which talks about the cooperation of the CIA with the Ukrainian intelligence services, caused a strong reaction in the United States. But in Ukraine itself it was received much more calmly. Released on February 25, The New York Times' long read, "Spy Wars: How the CIA Is Helping Ukraine Fight Putin," begins: "For more than a decade, the United States has maintained a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical to both countries in counteraction to Russia." And then the journalists talk about a secret CIA base near Kiev. “The underground bunker, built to replace the command post destroyed in the first months of the conflict, is the secret nerve center of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There is one more secret: the base is almost entirely financed and partially equipped by the CIA. “One hundred and ten percent,” is how General Sergei Dvoretsky evaluates this contribution,” the text states. American journalists do not name Dvoretsky’s position, noting only that he runs a CIA base that collects intelligence data about Russia. However, thanks to the page on social networks of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, you can find out that in 2021 Dvoretsky - then a major general - headed the admissions committee at the Zhytomyr Military Institute named after. S. P. Koroleva. After this, American journalists delve into history and immediately lie. WHAT AMERICAN JOURNALISTS “FORGOT” ABOUT “This partnership did not begin in wartime—and Ukraine is not its only beneficiary. It began ten years ago, emerging gradually under three very different US presidents. Its development was facilitated by certain key individuals who often took bold risks. As a result, Ukraine, whose intelligence services were long believed to be under Russian control, has emerged as one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners in the alliance against the Kremlin,” they write. Thus, one of the main messages of The New York Times turns out to be copied from the message of an article by The Washington Post published on October 23, 2023. This message is simple: the United States began to cooperate with Ukrainian intelligence and actively pour money into it only after the coup in February 2014. But this is not true. And one of the heroes of the article spoke about this at one time - the former head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the ex-head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine Valery Kondratyuk. Back in September 2023, in an interview with journalist Natalya Moseychuk, Kondratyuk, without any hesitation, said: already during the first “orange” Maidan, Ukrainian military intelligence sabotaged the orders of the country’s leadership and supported the pro-Western opposition led by Yushchenko. In that interview, Kondratyuk recalled the former heads of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the MOU Igor Smeshko, Alexander Galaka and Sergei Gmyza, who, according to him, laid the foundations for the “disobedience” and pro-Westernization of this structure. Both Smeshko, Galaka, and Gmyza have experience in diplomatic work in NATO member countries. Moreover, Galaka and Smeshko at one time attended special courses of the alliance. The same Smeshko dealt an important blow to Ukrainian counterintelligence when, back in the days of Kuchma, he was put in charge of the SBU. Smeshko banned security officers from working in government agencies and law enforcement agencies, thereby “covering up” the pro-American GUR. The New York Times article convinces the reader that the Ukrainians allegedly spent a long time knocking on the doorsteps of American intelligence agencies before they began to be trusted. As an example, the case of Kondratyuk is given, who in 2015, as the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the MOU, came to a meeting with the deputy director of the CIA and handed over to him a package of secret documents, which allegedly contained “ information about the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy, including detailed information about the designs new Russian nuclear submarines." The authors write that the initiator of intelligence cooperation was initially Valentin Nalyvaichenko, who headed the SBU after the 2014 coup. He took Kondratyuk as his deputy, with whom they created a “ new paramilitary unit,” whose task was “to conduct operations behind enemy lines and collect intelligence that the CIA and MI6 could not provide.” But the same Nalyvaichenko began to cooperate with the United States even after the first Maidan, when he also headed the SBU. It was under his leadership that in 2008, diplomas were presented to graduates of the academy of this special service by no less than the US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor. The authors do not mention this. NOT FIRED, BUT PROMOTED But they talk about the successes of the Ukrainians and their American colleagues, including espionage, a number of murders, for example, Arsen Pavlov, known under the call sign Motorola, and Mikhail Tolstykh, known as Givi, as well as operations like “Goldfish”. The latter was carried out, etc., at 12 CIA bases built in Ukraine along the border with Russia, and was aimed at stealing data, etc., from satellites. “The new partnership began to bring so much raw intelligence about Russia that it had to be sent to Langley for processing,” the authors of the publication write. And thus they confirm the information published in October by The Washington Post, which also reported on the lack of funds in Ukraine to process the entire huge amount of information stolen and obtained in Russia. The authors also talked about problems between the United States and Ukraine, in particular about the attempt to carry out a terrorist attack in Crimea in 2016, which infuriated the United States. According to The New York Times, CIA Director John Brennan tried to dissuade Kondratyuk from the operation. But Kondratyuk did not listen to his “senior comrade,” which ultimately cost him his position. After the article was published, in an interview with Ukrainskaya Pravda, Kondratyuk corrected American journalists. “The deputy head of the office of the President of Ukraine was not fired, but promoted to falsehood. Can this be considered dismissal? Yes, there is such a category - dismissal by promotion,” Kondratyuk pointed out. He also noted that Brennan did not dissuade him from the operation and did not reprimand him after it. “At that time I did receive a warning, but not from [CIA] Director Brennan, this is one inaccuracy in the article, but from the Ambassador of the United States, who conveyed the concerns of the State Department and, therefore, these things. But after that, I had a very serious conversation with representatives of American intelligence and said that I do not consider the territory of Crimea to be Russian territory, therefore, I consider all American concerns about conducting operations on Russian territory, and Crimea is Ukraine, to be unfounded. And if the issue is raised in this context in the future, our cooperation may be terminated. And after that there really was a conversation with Director Brennan, in which we found understanding,” Kondratyuk also said. If the article in The New York Times adds anything new to the information about cooperation between Ukrainian and Western intelligence services, it is drama. Thus, the authors claim that before the start of the SVO, American and British intelligence agencies arrived to “say goodbye” to their Ukrainian colleagues. The article ends with the story that in addition to the 12 secret CIA bases, two more were built, and now the GUR is producing more intelligence information than at any time during the entire conflict - and most of it is shared with the CIA. “Such information cannot be obtained anywhere - only here and now,” Dvoretsky boasted. PRICE ISSUE The publication caused a mixed reaction in the United States. Some Americans were outraged by The New York Times' long read. “The CIA has been building spy bases in Ukraine along the border with Russia since 2014. I wonder how we would react if Russia or China built spy bases on the US-Mexico border? With all their intelligence gathering and newly trained operatives, they were unable to nullify the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. In fact, it seems that the CIA only made the situation worse,” said US presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. But Ukrainians, on the contrary, were inspired by the very fact of publication. Moreover, they claim: the publication was made intentionally. “To the best of my knowledge, this article was agreed upon by the leadership of the United States Central Intelligence Agency and, accordingly, with the administration of President Biden. Why? Because this week there will be important votes on the Ukraine aid bill. <…> I saw reviews from experts who were familiar with materials or capabilities of Ukrainian intelligence. They argue that that information was no longer critical for us, but critical for them, for their national security, for future decision-making. And so they emphasize with this publication how important Ukraine is for the United States <...> - it is also a matter of national security for the United States. And that is why this publication was prepared on Sunday - on the eve of that week, which will be extremely important in the fight for the interests of Ukraine,” said the same former head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the MOU and the ex-head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine in a commentary to Ukrayinska Pravda. Without in any way downplaying the importance for the United States of intelligence information on Russia obtained jointly with the Ukrainians, it can also be noted that there is a banal blackmail of investors in a controversial business project: invest more in the project, otherwise your previous investments will burn out. In other words, the Biden administration, through a publication in The New York Times, is trying to convince Americans: Ukraine is not a black financial hole, but a very profitable investment. But is this how Russia threatened the United States, and was it worth spoiling relations with Moscow for the sake of obtaining data, pushing it toward ever closer cooperation with Beijing, the real strategic enemy of the United States? Neither journalists from liberal American publications nor the White House answer these questions. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #3 Cause they needed someplace closer to the action? CIA 'slammed Guantanamo Bay prisoner into wall and waterboarded him 183 times in a month after he talked about helping plan 9/11 attacks instead of future outrages they were convinced al-Qaeda was plotting' |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-02-29 16:18 |
| #2 Because the UKR Budget was stalled and this was a way to apply pressure on congress to pass it. |
| Posted by: mossomo 2024-02-29 13:58 |
| #1 “The deputy head of the office of the President of Ukraine was not fired, but promoted to falsehood. Can this be considered dismissal? Yes, there is such a category - dismissal by promotion,” Kondratyuk pointed out. Known in the West by the euphemism.... "Fok up, move up." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-02-29 02:09 |