Connect with us


U.S. & British intelligence are lying about involvement in build up to Ukraine/Russia war, according to ex-CIA officer



The New York Times recently published a significant expose shedding light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) activities in Ukraine, revealing the establishment of twelve covert intelligence forward operating bases near Russia’s borders. Following the publication, Russia’s Foreign Ministry scrutinized the report, contesting the narrative put forth by the NYT, which suggests that Western intelligence agencies became actively involved in Ukraine only after the Euromaidan coup in February 2014.

“The CIA has helped Kiev to train its spies, and not just spies, but outright militants, extremists, terrorists, thugs. Everyone. And one of the most striking examples of this chain being set in motion occurred in 2013-2014. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, reacting to the NYT’s reporting. “Under the guise of democratic forces and civilians, those which took part in the Maidan were primarily trained at bases in Poland and the Baltic states. And we have spoken about this,” she said.

NATO countries’ intelligence services worked to establish bases and other infrastructure in Ukraine long before the 2022 escalation, the spokeswoman said, and not only on the border with Russia, but across the country.

According to the Times’ account, the CIA created a dozen secret spy bases in Ukraine near Russia over an eight year period going back to 2016, with the intelligence “partnership” supposedly taking “root a decade ago,” after Maidan-appointed spy chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko contacted then-CIA director John Brennan and the MI6 asking them to help rebuild the Security Service of Ukraine (Ukrainian acronym SBU) “from the ground up.”

But, according to a former CIA officer Larry Johnson, this is not true.

“They’re lying about the U.S. role in those early stages,” says former CIA analyst and State Department Office of Counterterrorism expert Larry Johnson.

“They’re lying about the US and British role in helping create the coup and what happened in the Maidan. They’re acting like ‘oh, you know, the Maidan happened and then the CIA was contacted, after the fact’. Well that’s not true,”

Johnson told reporters, suggesting that the NYT is looking to create a narrative on the coup, the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 incident, the ‘Russia the aggressor’ story which ignores Ukraine’s punitive ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ in the Donbass starting in 2014, etc.

“You’ve got once piece of disinformation after another” in the story, according to the observer.

“And then, they’re saying that it was the United States trying to rein in Ukraine from carrying out all these terrorist attacks. So it’s really like we’re trying to send the message that ‘these attacks on Russia were not the fault of the United States, it was the Ukrainians acting on their own,’” which is another patent falsehood, Johnson said.

“We’ve had connections [with Ukrainian anti-Soviet and anti-Russian elements] going back to 1955. I mean the CIA’s role in dealing with the Banderites goes back into the late 1940s and early 1950s. They’re trying to portray that this is like some new relationship or just over the last 10-15 years. That’s nonsense,” the former CIA analyst emphasized.

Johnson suggested that the timing of the expose amidst the escalating proxy war in Ukraine, Russia’s advances in the Donbass region, and the potential withdrawal of US and European arms assistance to Kiev, may indicate Washington’s inclination to conclude its involvement in the Ukrainian project.

“I think this is a sign that the end is near for Ukraine. That’s the only reason they’re leaking it now. Because the Ukrainians themselves are putting that information out,” Johnson said. “It’s a sign that the rats are starting to leave the sinking ship. This is their way to say that it’s not the fault of the United States. You know, ‘we did everything we could, it’s these crazy Ukrainians.’ This is part of a ‘blame Ukraine’ [narrative],” the observer noted.

As for the dozen clandestine bases mentioned in the piece, Johnson expressed confidence that Russia knew about these facilities, and likely has taken or will take action to eliminate them.

“If I’m Russian intelligence, you’re going to blow those sites up,” he said. “The bases are not going to be that close to Russian territory because the Russians can easily take them out. And they almost exaggerate the kind of intelligence that’s collected. Again, if the CIA was really operating like the CIA is supposed to, that means they would have recruited human sources in the SBU already. That would have been passing them information without admitting or acknowledging it. But that’s not what was going on. This is what they call an open liaison service, so the information is being passed freely.”

The CIA “sets up bases in every friendly territory. These are bases for facilitating the work of the CIA,” including technical, operational and human intelligence, says Rustem Klupov, a Russian reserve colonel, Hero of Russia and veteran of military intelligence.

“For a military specialist in the areas of intelligence and counterintelligence [details on the 12 secret CIA bases in Ukraine] aren’t any sort of sensational or incredible news,” Klupov told Sputnik, pointing out that similar facilities exist in Georgia and other post-Soviet republics into which US spies have been invited. “The bases are needed to place their laboratories, their technical intelligence equipment, to have facilities for stationing agents or special intelligence forces,” so as not to have to drag all this infrastructure across the ocean.

The observer emphasized that the CIA operates as a spy and military-political organization, aiming to establish favorable conditions for US soft power through special operations, including espionage and sabotage. He noted that wherever the CIA is involved, questionable activities tend to occur. Drawing parallels, the veteran Russian officer highlighted the establishment of similar bases prior to the Arab Spring protests in 2011. He suggested that the CIA’s training and preparation during those times were geared towards potential conflicts in Eastern Europe, with objectives including sowing discord among neighboring and fraternal peoples.

Klupov highlighted the strategic approach of the United States, emphasizing their historical tendency to play the long game in global conflicts, dating back to the First World War. He suggested that Ukraine’s role within the Soviet Union and its aftermath represented a long-term project for the US. Klupov speculated that Ukrainian officers sought favor with the CIA by sharing secret documents, potentially dating from the Soviet era to post-USSR interactions with Russia. He emphasized the underlying economic motivations in modern conflicts, such as the proxy war in Ukraine. Klupov stressed that the ultimate aim is the collapse of Russia, driven by its vast natural resources. He warned of the potential consequences for Russia if it hadn’t intervened in Ukraine, foreseeing the establishment of American bases with advanced weaponry near its borders.


Leaked Emails Expose BBC’s Unverified Reporting and Political Bias



In a startling revelation, newly leaked internal emails from BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem have unveiled serious allegations against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The emails suggest that the BBC has been broadcasting news without verifying claims or seeking evidence, raising concerns about journalistic integrity and ethical practices within the organization.

The leaked emails highlight a pattern of unverified reporting, particularly concerning coverage of the conflict in Palestine. Ruhayem, a Beirut-based correspondent, criticized the BBC for airing sensational stories about alleged atrocities committed by Hamas fighters without proper verification. These unsubstantiated claims were broadcast repeatedly, despite the lack of concrete evidence.

In one instance, Ruhayem detailed how graphic allegations about Hamas fighters were allowed to pass unchallenged on air. “From the start, it was evident that unverified claims of the most atrocious acts by Hamas fighters against Israelis were being circulated and repeated at the highest levels,” Ruhayem wrote. He pointed out that BBC presenters often failed to ask for evidence or clarify that the claims had not been verified.

The emails also accuse the BBC of sensationalizing news stories to push a specific political agenda. Ruhayem suggested that the unverified allegations were part of a broader strategy to garner political support for Israel’s actions. “The BBC’s approach to reporting has contributed to shaping public perception in a way that supports Israel’s actions,” he stated.

Ruhayem’s emails describe how the repetition of unverified and sensational claims served to reinforce extreme portrayals of Israel’s enemies. This biased coverage likely influenced public opinion and political discourse, aligning with Israeli propaganda efforts.

The leaked correspondence reveals deep-seated grievances among BBC staff regarding the organization’s editorial direction. Ruhayem noted that despite numerous evidence-based critiques from staff members, BBC management failed to address these concerns. Instead of fostering thorough examination and inclusive discussions, the management opted to continue the problematic editorial practices.

In an email dated May 1, 2024, Ruhayem wrote to BBC Director General Tim Davie and several departments, detailing the editorial failings. He emphasized the need for mechanisms to ensure accurate and ethical reporting, which he claimed were ignored by the management.

The allegations of journalistic malpractice have significant implications for the BBC’s reputation and credibility. Broadcasting unverified information and sensationalizing stories undermine the core principles of journalism: accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. These practices not only misinform the public but also erode trust in the media.

The leaked emails call into question the integrity of the BBC’s news coverage and highlight the need for rigorous journalistic standards. As the organization faces scrutiny, it must address these issues to restore its standing as a trusted news source.

The bombshell leaks from Rami Ruhayem’s emails expose serious flaws in the BBC’s reporting practices, revealing a troubling pattern of unverified reporting and political bias. As the media landscape continues to evolve, maintaining journalistic integrity and accountability remains paramount. The BBC must take urgent steps to rectify these issues and uphold the highest standards of journalism.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Secret Service Increased Security for Zelenskyy While Denying Security For Former President Trump



Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to Washington in December 2022 was treated with the utmost importance, featuring extraordinary security measures. Hundreds of law enforcement and intelligence officials were activated, with the U.S. Secret Service leading the effort as Zelenskyy visited the White House and addressed Congress. From the moment he landed, Zelenskyy was accompanied by a Secret Service detail, and this protection continued until his departure. His motorcade was also provided by the Secret Service, assisted by local law enforcement.

Former Secret Service agent Don Mihalek explained that the agency is responsible for protecting all visiting foreign heads of state on U.S. soil. Zelenskyy’s visit was seen as particularly sensitive due to the ongoing war with Russia, raising concerns about potential threats from Russian agents or collaborators.

Security for Zelenskyy’s trip to Capitol Hill was akin to State of the Union preparations, with significant measures implemented. The Secret Service consulted with the Capitol Police, CIA, FBI, and other agencies to ensure safety. Every Capitol Police officer was on standby, given the potential threats.

In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump’s security detail has faced significant challenges in obtaining the same level of resources and personnel. Over the past two years, the Secret Service acknowledged denying multiple requests for increased security at Trump’s events. While the agency provided alternative measures, such as local sniper teams and hand-held magnetometers, Trump’s team felt these were insufficient and inadequate to address the security risks involved.

The recent attempted assassination of Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, has intensified scrutiny. A sniper managed to get rooftop access roughly 150 meters from Trump’s position, raising serious questions about security lapses. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle is facing calls for her resignation, including from House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Despite these assurances, the disparity in security measures for Zelenskyy and Trump has raised significant concerns about the Secret Service’s prioritization and ability to adequately protect high-profile individuals. Trump’s security detail and advisers have repeatedly voiced their frustrations over what they perceive as an unequal allocation of resources and attention.

The decision to prioritize Zelenskyy’s security to such an extent, while denying crucial security enhancements for a former U.S. president, suggests a troubling inconsistency in the Secret Service’s approach to protection. The assassination attempt on Trump highlights the severe consequences of these decisions and underscores the urgent need for a reassessment of priorities and resource allocation within the agency.

The handling of security for Trump, particularly in light of the recent assassination attempt, exposes significant gaps and inconsistencies within the Secret Service. As scrutiny intensifies, the agency must address these failures, ensure equitable security measures for all high-profile individuals, and restore confidence in its protective capabilities. Director Kimberly Cheatle’s leadership and decisions are now under intense examination, and calls for her resignation reflect the gravity of the situation and the demand for accountability.


Continue Reading

Government Accountability

Secret Service Denied Additional Security Requests for Trump Events, Sources Reveal



Top officials at the U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied requests for additional security resources and personnel sought by Donald Trump’s security detail in the two years leading up to his attempted assassination at a rally in Pennsylvania on July 13, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Agents responsible for protecting the former president requested various enhancements to security measures, including magnetometers to screen attendees at large public gatherings, additional snipers, and specialty teams for outdoor events. These requests, often made in writing, were reportedly denied by senior officials at the Secret Service. Reasons cited included a lack of resources and staffing shortages within the agency.

These denials have led to heightened tensions between Trump, his top aides, and Secret Service leadership. Trump’s advisers had privately expressed concerns that the Secret Service was not providing adequate protection. The Secret Service, initially denying these claims, has since acknowledged that some requests may have been rejected. This acknowledgment comes amid scrutiny over the agency’s handling of security at the recent rally where a gunman fired from a rooftop, injuring Trump and killing a man in the crowd.

According to sources, Trump’s security team had repeatedly asked for enhanced security measures, including more countersnipers and magnetometers, particularly at large-scale events. These requests were sometimes turned down by the Secret Service due to what they cited as a shortage of resources and an increasing list of protectees.

The Secret Service’s response to the security needs of Trump has been complicated by the agency’s broader responsibilities, which include protecting the current president, vice president, former presidents, and other high-profile figures. With limited funding and staffing constraints, the agency has struggled to meet all demands, leading to prioritization challenges.

The weekend of the Butler shooting, the Secret Service had dispatched numerous countersniper teams and agents to other significant events, including the Republican National Convention and events involving President Joe Biden and Jill Biden. This allocation of resources further strained the agency’s ability to address Trump’s security needs.

Trump and his advisers have expressed frustration over the Secret Service’s handling of security requests. During a recent Trump rally, the former president criticized the agency’s performance, highlighting instances where requests for additional security were denied. One notable instance involved a rally in Pickens, South Carolina, in July 2023, where Trump’s team requested more countersnipers, only to have the request denied by Secret Service headquarters.

The Secret Service had previously argued that some security measures, such as magnetometers at sporting events, were deemed unnecessary because Trump would be entering secure areas. However, Trump’s team expressed concerns over his safety as he moved through open areas and interacted with the public.

The security lapse at the Pennsylvania rally has intensified calls for accountability within the Secret Service. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has faced criticism and calls for resignation over her agency’s handling of the incident. Despite initial denials that any requests for additional security were rejected, Cheatle has faced pressure from both Trump’s team and lawmakers who are questioning the agency’s preparedness and response.

The Secret Service has acknowledged the complexity of balancing its responsibilities and has committed to reviewing the specific interactions and documentation related to the security requests. The agency has reiterated its commitment to ensuring the safety of its protectees while managing a dynamic threat environment.


The revelations about the Secret Service’s repeated denial of security requests for Donald Trump highlight a troubling pattern of mismanagement and negligence. The agency’s failure to provide adequate protection for the former president, despite numerous requests, has resulted in a serious security breach and an attempted assassination that could have been avoided.

This situation is not just a failure of protocol but a stark example of an agency that has been overwhelmed and under-resourced for too long. The repeated denials of crucial security measures, coupled with the Secret Service’s initial denials and lack of transparency, have rightfully fueled outrage and demands for accountability.

Director Kimberly Cheatle, who has faced growing scrutiny over her leadership, must bear responsibility for these lapses. The calls for her resignation are not just about one incident but reflect a broader concern about the Secret Service’s capacity to effectively safeguard its protectees under her watch. It’s clear that a leadership change is necessary to restore confidence in the agency and ensure that such critical failures do not happen again. The Secret Service must urgently address its systemic issues, reassess its resource allocation, and commit to a higher standard of accountability to protect those it is sworn to serve.

Continue Reading