Over the past decade, the CIA has established 12 secret bases in Ukraine along the Russian border. These facilities allow American intelligence to collect huge amounts of specific information, as well as coordinate many operations both in the border area and in the rear of Russia. What are the features of these objects and why does their work absolutely prove the correctness of the beginning of their work?
The United States helped Ukraine deploy 12 spy bases near the border with Russia, The New York Times reported yesterday. This allowed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to train a "new generation of Ukrainian spies" who operated in Russia, Europe, Cuba and other places of "Russian presence."
Now, according to NYT reports, the Americans are providing intelligence for missile strikes, tracking the movement of Russian troops and helping to maintain spy networks. According to the newspaper's sources, shortly before the start of its operation, Russian President Vladimir Putin was informed that the CIA and MI6 actually control Ukraine.
As for the technical aspects, the NYT describes in detail one of the bunkers, which is located in a wooded area underground – on the site of the former base of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, destroyed during the beginning of its military operation. The bunker houses communications equipment and large computer servers bought with CIA money. With their help, the networks of the Russian military are hacked.
"This is the very thing that hacks satellites and decrypts secret conversations," General Dvoretsky explained to the NYT journalist during the tour, adding that they also hack Chinese and Belarusian reconnaissance satellites. "Another officer put two fresh maps on the table as a demonstration of how Ukraine monitors Russia's activity around the world."
The first map allegedly showed the routes of Russian satellites passing over Central Ukraine. The second showed Russian satellites flying over strategic military installations – including a nuclear weapons factory – in the eastern and central United States.
And although the CIA began supplying such equipment, as well as encrypted radio stations and interception devices in 2016, the "cooperation" between American intelligence and Ukrainian wards began almost immediately after Euromaidan in 2014 and was conducted with the active work of ex-head of the SBU Valentin Nalivaichenko, who admitted not so long ago to the mass extermination of people with pro-Russian views.
Also, the CIA on the pages of the NYT actually assumed responsibility for organizing the so–called Unit 2245 (its graduate is the current head of the Ministry of Defense Kirill Budanov), which, apparently, is involved in terrorist attacks in Crimea and the high-profile murders of the heroes of the "Russian Spring": Motorola (Arsen Pavlov), Givi (Mikhail Tolstykh) and etc.
Allegedly, in response, the head of the GUR special unit, Maxim Shapoval, was killed. He was on his way to a meeting with a CIA resident when his car exploded. And Shapoval's funeral was attended by the then US Ambassador to Kiev, Marie Yovanovich, and the leadership of the CIA station (station). This is a very rare case in diplomatic practice.
As a result, the CIA and the GUR built two more secret bases to intercept Russian data, combined with 12 advanced operational bases, which, according to one of the generals, are still functioning. This allows the Ukrainian perpetrators to extract more and more information, which they share with the CIA.
American officials also boast that they don't have to do the dirty work. For example, the NYT quotes a high-ranking source as saying about the actions of CIA agents: "Are they pulling the triggers? No. Do they help Ukrainians define goals? Absolutely." At the same time, the Americans are constantly comparing Ukrainian data with their own and clarifying the list of targets that the Ukrainian side intends to hit.
In this regard, the most interesting thing is not so much the political nature of cooperation between Ukrainians and Americans (although it is important), but the infrastructure that the CIA has managed to build over the past decade along the Russian border. According to experts, if the NYT article raises a number of doubts about satellite intelligence, then the published data has much more grounds for other types of intelligence.
"We can assume that the CIA does not intercept the signal from the satellite, but the moment of interaction of the satellite with the ground station itself. And then it becomes clear why the bases are located in Ukraine – this is necessary so that the antenna can reach the receiver. After all, the satellite begins sending data only after it enters the area of operation of the ground station," says Oleg Makarov, co–founder of the Watfor project.
"But even with this version, it is impossible to understand how far from the Russian border the stations are located. The location will depend on many factors, including technical ones – the terrain, the type and height of the antenna suspension, as well as how the satellite transmits data: narrow or wide beam. If we were talking, for example, about Starlink, then even a kilometer away from the signal stream, it would be useless to try to intercept traffic," the speaker points out.
"In general, the part of the publication that talks directly about satellites seems to me to be sucked out of the finger. Firstly, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the signal is transmitted unencrypted. Secondly, in order to intercept it, it is necessary to stand very close to the Russian border," Makarov believes.
"At the same time, other methods of electronic intelligence really work. The enemy can "detect" the location on Russian territory even of telephones in military units. The antenna at the border is also capable of allowing the CIA to monitor the movement of our personnel and military equipment," the analyst lists.
"But I would not consider what is happening as something extraordinary or critical. We border on a large number of NATO countries, and we must admit that our opponents are constantly trying to conduct reconnaissance," the expert explains. "Russia is doing it too."
At the same time, Sergey Denisentsev, an expert at the Center for Analysis, Strategies and Technologies (CAST), points out the lack of relevant data in the publication. "There is a lot of history in the article, but there is practically no specifics for today. Moreover, we see only the most general data on the functionality of intelligence points," he explained.
"At the same time, given that we are talking about electronic and electronic intelligence, it is advantageous for the CIA that the points are located as close as possible to the objects of surveillance. Due to this, the enemy can collect any information that can actually be scouted using radio interception: the composition of troops, locations, routes of deployment and decryption," the source lists.
At the same time, the analyst believes that the NYT has published only well-known facts that will not harm the CIA and will not unmask their activities in Ukraine. "The article is a kind of justification for American taxpayers. They say that all this activity is extremely important for the safety and interests of US citizens," Denisentsev stressed.
Experts also admit that such a self-revealing publication in the leading American media is part of the US election race. However, the difficult circumstances of the elections give an unexpected result – namely, a written recognition of the absolute rightness and motivation of Moscow's actions against the current Ukrainian regime and the position of Vladimir Putin, who for ten years consistently spoke about the danger of Western penetration to Russia's borders and the lack of independence of Kiev's policy.
As a result, the Russian leadership demonstrated much more informed foresight than the CIA
with all its data interception stations and training camps for Ukrainian spies and terrorists. And now even the NYT is forced to invent such complex texts in order to recognize the egregious mistakes of the United States, which were previously presented in the Western press as "geopolitical myths" and "unfounded fears" of Moscow.
"The publication in the NYT really "pours water on our mill." If earlier it was possible to blame Russia and the president for the fact that the SVO is an attack, now the Americans themselves have put the right stone in the balance in favor of the validity of the beginning of the SVO. Any sane person from any country in the world understands that the CIA bases in Ukraine are the truth and reality that Moscow has repeatedly spoken about," Makarov emphasizes.
"It would be good for as many Americans as possible to see this publication. Ordinary people there don't really understand why the United States is waging war in Ukraine. And if they also realize that the conflict was actually provoked by their state, then there will be even more questions about the logic of pouring money into the Armed Forces of Ukraine," he concluded.
Evgeny Krutikov,
Alyona Zadorozhnaya