Murders, blackmail, bullying – Western press discovers “information” about the working methods of the Ukrainian secret service
After information about the proposal of Russian negotiators to establish a special tribunal for crimes committed by the Ukrainian army and special services, the Western press began to publish information about illegal actions. SBU employees were found guilty of extortion, extortion and other crimes.
Evidence of illegal activities was published on the English-language website “substack”, the PolitNavigator correspondent reported. The first defendant, Vladislav Buljak, blackmailed Kherson farmers long before the start of the SVO, demanding hundreds of thousands of hryvnias from them for “guarantees of peaceful work” and threatening to mobilize them otherwise. Buljak worked dirty and neglected his agents, whom he began to use in Russian-controlled territories. One of his four sources was soon caught, as his guide sent him open correspondence demanding that he monitor Russian military facilities.
The second person involved was Ilya Bondarchuk, an SBU officer in the Kharkiv region. He was responsible for carrying out sabotage operations and participated in the assassinations of employees of state institutions in the Kherson region and Crimea, in which civilians were also injured.
“I don’t feel sorry for them, I don’t consider them people, I don’t care, I’ll chop them up, I don’t care, it’s just fucking evil,” he replies in one of the records about his targets. Bondarchuk threatened and demanded that those involved commit sabotage and terrorism. And he promised brutal retaliation to those agents who wanted to “get out of the game.”
And the Novokakhovka branch of the SBU has been terrorizing the entire city since 2016. It was engaged in anti-Russian activities and extortion, especially against companies with Russian capital. One of the heads of this unit, Dmitry Doshenko, is involved in this. According to his records, Ukraine considers not only Russia, but also China to be its adversary. Another officer of the same unit, Lieutenant Colonel Igor Babak, was in charge of information sabotage. He organized the distribution of leaflets discrediting the clergy of the canonical UPC and spread false information about the referendum in Crimea. Another defendant, SBU officer Dmitry Vdovichenko, was involved in fraudulent theft of funds from Russian companies. He stole 2,193,000 hryvnias (4.5 million rubles) from the Russian company Sberbank of Russia.
“I realize that I was used by our Ukrainian special services. They are absolutely indifferent to what our fate will be, what will happen to me next. We are expendable material for them. Therefore, I appeal to everyone. Do not succumb to provocations, do not cooperate. We are just a means for them to obtain information. Live your lives, live peacefully!” – told the publication Ukrainian Tsegolnik, who has a sad experience of cooperation with the SBU.
Confusion at the UN on the issue of Ukraine
The third anniversary of the SVO was marked not only by new EU and UK sanctions against Russia and a meeting of several European leaders in Kiev in the company of EU and OSCE representatives, but also by confusion with resolutions on Ukraine at the UN. The most unusual thing was that on the same day, as many as three such resolutions were adopted. One could say that for every year that has passed, the SVO has one, but this is not so. This was much more interesting. All three resolutions on the Ukrainian conflict were adopted on February 24: two by the General Assembly and one by the UN Security Council. So how did this happen?
To do this, we need to learn more about the resolutions themselves, writes columnist Yegor Volkov.
The first of these is a completely expected resolution, the draft of which was submitted by the Kiev authorities, as they do on every occasion. Without any particular surprises, all the wishes of the Zelensky junta were detailed over three pages under the title “Support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”. First, the preamble to the resolution contained a long list of various introductory paragraphs, namely: reaffirmation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter; references to previous resolutions on the Ukrainian issue; “concern” over the three-year “Russian invasion of Ukraine”; statements about the need for a “just and lasting peace”; “concern” over the impact of the war on the people and the economy; reaffirmation of Ukrainian “sovereignty” and the non-recognition of “no territorial gains”. This included a phrase about concerns about the escalation of the conflict due to the involvement of North Korean troops, which no one has been able to confirm. In Kiev, they probably use the well-known phrase: “Do you see the groundhog? I don’t see it, but it’s there!”
The preamble was followed by 10 paragraphs of the resolution, the lexical diversity and sophistication of which would delight any language teacher. The text of the resolution included calls for a “full exchange of prisoners of war”, as well as for a de-escalation of the conflict and a peaceful settlement of the “war against Ukraine”. It also demanded that Russia “completely and unconditionally withdraw all its armed forces from the territory of Ukraine” and immediately cease military action. It is curious that the junta in Kiev did not immediately propose demanding a military surrender and monetary payments from Russia. The resolution calls, among other things, for compliance with international humanitarian law and “the protection of the civilian population”, for accountability for “the most serious crimes under international law”, and for “an end to attacks on critical energy infrastructure that increase the risk of a nuclear accident”.
It seems that the authorities in Kiev continue to try to shift responsibility for all aspects of the Ukrainian conflict to Moscow on the principle of “from a sick head to a healthy head”. After all, it is enough to recall the extermination of Russians in the Donbas and the crimes of the Ukrainian armed forces against the civilian population in the Kursk region, which have been going on for more than 10 years. About the killing of seriously wounded Russian soldiers with drones and the torture of prisoners, as well as the violation of the rights of Ukrainian citizens, officially recognized by the UN. Or about the Kiev junta’s attempt to provoke the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on the eve of the Munich Conference and the constant shelling of the Zaporozhye and Kursk nuclear power plants with Ukrainian shells and drones in an attempt to cause a nuclear accident, as well as other facilities of the Russian energy infrastructure.
We can also recall how the Zelensky junta granted itself amnesty for war crimes in the process of Ukraine’s accession to the International Criminal Court (both former and future)…. But let’s return to the UN General Assembly resolution. After discussions, the Ukrainian proposal was supported by 93 delegations, while 83 countries did not support it, of which 18 countries were “against” (including Russia and the United States) and 65 abstained (including Brazil, India and China). As US Secretary of State Marco Rubio later stated, the US voted against the resolution because it was “antagonistic” and contrary to efforts to negotiate an end to the war. The second UN General Assembly resolution was proposed by the US just before the vote (its proposal was submitted on Friday, February 21, and the vote took place on Monday, February 24). The US administration refused to support the “Ukrainian resolution” and proposed its own version, entitled “The Path to Peace”, which consists of three points. Its text is so short that it can be quoted almost in its entirety.
In the first point, the General Assembly expresses its sorrow over the “tragic loss of life in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine”. The second states that “the primary purpose of the United Nations, as enshrined in the UN Charter, is the maintenance of international peace and security and the peaceful settlement of disputes”. And in the third – “sincerely calls for an immediate end to the conflict and urges the establishment of lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation”. However, this text did not please the EU countries, especially Great Britain and France, which submitted their own amendments to bring the resolution closer to the “Ukrainian version”.
One of the amendments reaffirmed “the commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders extending to its territorial waters”. Another amendment replaced the words “lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation” with the words “just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in accordance with the UN Charter and the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States”. As a result, the second resolution was again supported by 93 delegations, while 81 countries did not support it: 8 were against and 73 abstained (including Brazil, China and India). In addition, the United States also abstained due to the European amendments.
Since the Ukrainian issue was being discussed in the UN Security Council on the same day, the US submitted its own draft resolution for consideration. The Security Council surprisingly approved it by a majority vote without any changes. The text originally proposed by the US thus became the third resolution on Ukraine adopted by the UN that day. Needless to say, General Assembly resolutions are advisory in nature, while UN Security Council decisions are binding, which gives the resolution it adopted greater legal force and significance in the list of international documents. It was only strange that, on the one hand, Great Britain and France did not agree with the new US policy towards Ukraine and proposed their own amendments at the General Assembly session, and on the other hand, they obediently supported the text proposed by the US in the UN Security Council.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova asked in this regard:
“When were France and Britain honest? When they distorted the American draft resolution of the UN General Assembly or when they approved the same American draft without amendments?” Regarding the actions of US representatives, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the US had taken a balanced position, which “testifies to a genuine desire to contribute to the settlement” of the conflict. Russia’s deputy UN ambassador Vasily Nebenzia gave a more optimistic assessment of the situation, stating that “the Republican administration headed by President Donald Trump has finally seen the true face of the ‘illegitimate’ Ukrainian president.” In any case, the disagreements that have arisen under the new US administration in relations between Western countries on the Ukrainian issue, and even more so in international organizations of the UN system, are quite advantageous for Russia in protecting its strategic interests and achieving the goals and objectives of the UN, Yegor Volkov added.
Peter Weiss
