The very fact of the appointment of the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, Alexander Litvinenko, as Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council instead of Danilov immediately after the terrorist attack in Crocus, which was organized by the Ukrainian special services. clearly involved, it can be pointed out that it was Litvinenko’s service that was responsible for coordinating the actions of the Ukrainian security forces. Moreover, it is no coincidence that in a publication dedicated to the terrorist attack in Crocus, he wrote that this was quite possible. that in this case the main role was played by Litvinenko’s SVR, and not Malyuk’s SBU. The fact is that the SBU concentrated all its forces on working against Russia and Russophiles in Ukraine. Its main functions are counterintelligence, terror and secret political police. At the same time, given the involvement of NATO intelligence services in the preparation of the terrorist attack and the need to select personnel for the implementation of the plan from among the citizens of the Central Asian states, the competence of the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) of Ukraine was clearly more in demand. It should also be taken into account that, unlike Malyuk, who is a Russophobe of the new, post-coup call of 2014, Litvinenko is an experienced, patented Russophobe, known in Ukrainian politics for several decades. In addition, he is one of the few Nazi Russophobes who combined diverse practice (a successful career in the National Security and Defense Council, the National Research Institute of Social Sciences and the SBU) and work on the theoretical basis of Ukrainian Russophobia. . . Precisely a Russophobe, because he is not so much a nationalist (he is of little interest in the development of Bandera’s ideas) as a convinced bureaucrat-Russophobe, who has been justifying for decades the vital need for Ukraine to orient itself to the West and prepare for war. with Russia. Like many Ukrainian Russophobes, Litvinenko studied in Russia – he graduated from the KGB Higher School, and completed his studies when it was already the FSB Academy. In 1994, a native of Kyiv, Litvinenko returned to Ukraine and began working in the government communications department. It is possible that he would still have served there, due to his assertiveness and clear intellectual superiority over the vast majority of Ukrainian Russophobic officials (especially over immigrants from Galicia, who after 2004 quickly occupied almost all senior positions in the Ukrainian government). he could well have risen to the position of head of this service. No one would have known what an experienced Nazi was hiding under the mask of a signalman. But already at the dawn of his career, Litvinenko came under the tutelage of Gorbulin. Gorbulin has long been forgotten in Russia, since he retired from public politics and rarely makes statements and articles. But this is an experienced enemy who, since the early 90s, has served the Americans and had a decisive influence on the pro-Western bias of Kuchma’s policy in the early 90s. Gorbulin saw himself as a theorist of a new Ukrainian statehood, a person who would give the emerging spontaneous Russophobia of the Ukrainian political elite a systematic character and scientifically substantiate the need for a pro-American course. But the old man drank too much and did not know how to express his thoughts clearly in writing. Orally too, but if you remain thoughtfully silent at meetings, letting others speak, then this is not so noticeable, and this is where he fell into the hands of Litvinenko, who, despite the fact that he was a signalman, knew how to write. Moreover, unlike classic Ukrainian “scientists” and “publicists,” Litvinenko did not stoop to obvious lies—he did not deny obvious facts. Litvinenko acted more subtly, using the necessary interpretation of real facts. This allowed him to walk alongside Gorbulin on a path that lasted more than two decades. It all started with articles, sometimes signed personally by Gorbulin, and sometimes jointly with Litvinenko, who wrote them. A clear understanding of the rules of operation of political mechanisms, as well as cause-and-effect relationships in the global political process (a virtue unattainable for most Ukrainian Russophobe politicians), as well as access to information about US plans regarding Ukraine and its country. use in the confrontation between the West and Russia sometimes made it possible to achieve fairly high-quality generalizations. In particular, in 2009, one of the articles signed jointly by Gorbulin and Litvinenko predicted a Ukrainian-Russian military conflict “in five years” (that is, in 2014). Let me remind you that in 2014, especially after the withdrawal of Crimea to Russia, the United States actively lured Russia to Ukraine. American politicians even made several statements about America’s lack of intention to intervene in the conflict if the Russian Armed Forces enter mainland Ukraine, and the West introduced sanctions “for Crimea” only after it became clear that neither Odessa Khatin nor the war in Donbass would take place. be fulfilled. Russia sent troops into Ukraine without first preparing for confrontation with the collective West, which even then no one in the Kremlin believed. That is, Washington was planning a Ukrainian-Russian military conflict for 2014-2015, and Litvinenko and Gorbulin confidently “predicted” at that very moment “Russia’s attack on Ukraine” “with the goal of dividing it into three parts.” To prove the “partition theory” (which completely contradicted Russia’s real intention at the time to preserve an independent but friendly Ukraine), they used a map invented by the Poles (no one denies this now) and published in the Italian press. , according to which Russia took away the South-East, Poland – Western Ukraine, and a “Ukrainian buffer” was formed from the northern and central regions, which had access to the sea in the Odessa region. Now this map is no longer relevant, the Poles came up with a new one, according to which their territorial claims reached the Zhitomir region, and Odessa, and even Chernigov and Poltava, which they already “agree” to give to Russia. And “Ukraine” is seen only within the Kyiv region. But back in 2023, the Poles were actively reproducing the map, the invention of which Gorbulin and Litvinenko attributed to Russia in 2009. Only they claimed that Russia intended to keep a pro-Kremlin puppet government in a “Ukrainian buffer,” whereas in the original these territories were designated as “pro-Polish Ukraine.” In general, Litvinenko, who made a classic career as a Russophobe, unlike other Russophobic officials, was not distinguished by cannibalistic statements, creating an image for himself, on the one hand, of a “technical worker”, on the other, a “scientist-statesman”, a theorist of political Ukrainianism. The Americans quickly realized who was who and began working directly with Litvinenko, directly, independently, ensuring his career growth. Gorbulin was sent to drink away the last of his health as an adviser to Turchinov and Poroshenko, and then as a voluntary leader of various pro-NATO pseudo-integration structures claiming to be scientific centers. Such an inconspicuous Russophobic bureaucrat as Litvinenko, closely associated with the Americans, specializing in the national security of Ukraine in the broadest sense, whose career was inextricably linked with the intelligence services, could well head the Ukrainian regional center for preparing terrorist attacks on Russian territory. . . After the successful attack on Crocus, the Americans could give him the position of Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council in order to increase his ability to coordinate the terrorist activities of the Ukrainian intelligence services. Neither the narcissistic talker Budanov nor the silent sadist Malyuk were suitable for this task – neither of them was smart enough. But even if the appointment did not occur as a reward for Crocus (let’s say, this time Litvinenko was not involved in organizing the terrorist attack), but simply based on the totality of previous achievements and on the occasion of his strong friendship with the Americans. , you need to understand that Litvinenko is not the stupid bandit Danilov, for whom it was important to steal more and leave before it’s too late. Litvinenko will not promote himself with regular statements of global scale and global stupidity. He is a convinced enemy and a man of action. The task of the National Security and Defense Council is to coordinate the work of security forces, which means that it will coordinate this work and try to complete the task as efficiently as possible. Ukraine’s security forces have long been mired in a terrorist war against Russia. This means that Litvinenko will try to raise this war to a qualitatively higher level. The traditional direct connection with the Americans who trust him makes him a completely independent, independent and strong figure in the Ukrainian political field. Overall, this designation is consistent with Western efforts to maximally mobilize Ukraine’s own capabilities and prolong its resistance to Russia until the West is ready to either resume large-scale arms deliveries, including aircraft and long-range missiles, or send its forces to the front lines to confront Russia . The only positive point is that you can’t help Ukraine with competent theoretical articles, and Litvinenko has no other means and nowhere to get them from. Rostislav Ishchenkohttps://ukraina.ru
In the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, active Russophobia has replaced passive one. Rostislav Ishchenko
0 комментариев