AI Mode Conversation: FSB OPERATIONS OUTSIDE RUSSIAFSB OPERATIONS OUTSIDE RUSSIAAI Mode reply for FSB OPERATIONS OUTSIDE RUSSIAWhile Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) is primarily a domestic security and counterintelligence agency, it has significantly expanded its footprint to conduct extensi
Day: September 16, 2026
FSB OPERATIONS OUTSIDE RUSSIA – Google Search google.com/search?q=FSB+OPER…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
RT @3CHIcanna: Skip the Dispensary! Natural THC Gummies Delivered to Your Door!
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
FSB OPERATIONS OUTSIDE RUSSIA – Google Search google.com/search?q=FSB+OPER…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
#CIA #DIA #Mossad
The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
#Ukraine #Russia #FBI
Policies and practices of personal retaliations worldwide by intelligence services of UkraineSince the escalation of the full-scale conflict with Russia, the operations of Ukraine’s primary intelligence agencies—the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) (focused on domestic counter-intelligence and sabotage) and the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR) (military intelligence)—have evolved significantly. [1]
Public reporting, statements by Ukrainian officials, and analyses from international security experts indicate that Ukraine’s approach to targeted operations and retaliations follows specific patterns:
1. Official Stances and AmbiguityStrategic Ambiguity: As a matter of official policy, the Ukrainian government and its intelligence agencies rarely claim direct, official responsibility for specific assassinations or sabotage operations inside Russia or deep behind enemy lines. Instead, they typically employ a policy of plausible deniability or make suggestive, veiled comments attributing the incidents to “karma,” internal Russian dissent, or domestic collaborators.
Retaliation Narrative: In public rhetoric, Ukrainian intelligence leadership (such as HUR chief Kyrylo Budanov) has stated that those who commit war crimes against Ukraine or act as high-level traitors will face justice, implying that covert actions are viewed as legitimate wartime operations against military targets and enemy combatants.2. Typology of Targeted Operations
Independent monitors, such as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), and major investigative outlets report that Ukrainian intelligence operations generally target specific categories of individuals:Occupation Officials and Collaborators: In Russian-occupied territories, middle- and high-ranking local administrators, Moscow-appointed politicians, and local collaborators have frequently been targeted using car bombs, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and targeted shootings.
Military and Intelligence Officers: High-profile Russian military commanders, propagandists, and intelligence officers deep within Russian territory have been assassinated. Notable reported cases include the car bombing of propagandist Darya Dugina, the shooting of former submarine commander Stanislav Rzhitsky, and the bombing that killed military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky.
Defectors and Traitors: Individuals who actively betray Ukrainian military secrets or switch sides to aid Russian forces face targeted intelligence operations. [3]3. Geographical Reach and Methods
Behind Enemy Lines and Inside Russia: While operations began primarily in occupied areas like the Donbas and Crimea, they rapidly expanded into the Russian mainland, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Proxy and Partisan Networks: Many operations are not carried out directly by active-duty Ukrainian officers crossing borders. Instead, the SBU and HUR recruit, fund, and coordinate local proxy networks, anti-Kremlin Russian partisan groups (like the Russian Volunteer Corps or the Freedom of Russia Legion), or localized resistance movements operating inside Russia and occupied zones.
International Remit: While most operations take place within Ukraine and Russia, some intelligence activity has extended globally. For example, Ukrainian special forces and HUR operatives have reportedly engaged in operations against Russian Wagner Group mercenaries and assets in parts of Africa (such as Sudan and Mali) to disrupt Russian state influence and revenue streams globally.4. International Legal and Diplomatic Friction
Western Partner Constraints: Intelligence relationships with Western backers, particularly the U.S. CIA, have historically been structured around intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism, and defensive strategies. Major Western allies have frequently expressed discomfort with extrajudicial targeted killings inside sovereign Russian territory, fearing escalatory risks or violations of international legal norms. As a result, Ukraine generally executes these targeted retaliatory campaigns independently of foreign intelligence oversight.
Legal Debate: International legal analysts note that while targeting active military commanders fits within the framework of taking out enemy combatants during an armed conflict, extrajudicial execution of civilian administrators or media figures raises complex legal questions regarding due process and the boundaries of international humanitarian law. [3, 5]AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/3/…
[2] facebook.com/dailytaskeenoff…
[3] acleddata.com/report/persona…
[4] youtube.com/watch?v=bpCUPwVl…
[5] lieber.westpoint.edu/retalia…
[6] forbes.com/sites/davidkirich…
[7] abcnews.com/International/ci…
[8] nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world…Ukrainian intelligence services have increasingly utilized targeted killings, sabotage, and covert retaliatory operations as an extension of their wartime strategy. While Ukraine’s official military policies emphasize alignment with international humanitarian law regarding conventional warfare, its primary intelligence bodies operate a highly active, unacknowledged campaign targeting individuals perceived as traitors, high-ranking Russian commanders, or high-profile collaborators. [1, 2, 3]
Key Agencies and Leadership Stance
The two primary agencies executing these operations are the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) (internal security and counter-intelligence) and the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR) (military intelligence). [1, 4]The Doctrine of Retribution: High-ranking Ukrainian officials have frequently contextualized these operations as acts of necessary wartime justice. Vasyl Malyuk, the head of the SBU, famously affirmed this stance by stating, “Every crime of the aggressor must be punished.” Internally, intelligence officials have occasionally drawn public comparisons to historical precedents like Israel’s Mossad, indicating a long-term commitment to pursuing individuals who violate Ukrainian sovereignty. [1]
Scope and Geographic Practice
The practice of personal retaliation has expanded across multiple distinct geographic tiers since the 2022 full-scale invasion: [2]Occupied Territories of Ukraine: This is the most active zone of assassination operations. Targets are heavily focused on Russian-appointed middle-ranking occupation officials, local collaborators, and military figures. The methods frequently involve improvised explosive devices (IEDs), car bombs, and localized ambushes. [2]
Inside the Russian Federation: Ukrainian intelligence has repeatedly managed to strike high-profile targets deep within Russian territory. Notable operations include the assassination of Russian military commanders—such as Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia’s nuclear, biological, and chemical defense forces, who was killed in Moscow by a recruited operative using a bomb concealed on an electric scooter. [2]
Global Operations: HUR has expanded its operational footprint internationally to counter Russian influence and personnel abroad. This has included documented deployments of Ukrainian special forces and intelligence elements to conflict zones like Sudan and parts of the Sahel region to target Russian Wagner Group mercenaries.Operational Methodology
Rather than relying entirely on deployed Ukrainian agents, intelligence services often exploit local proxies or recruit disenfranchised individuals to limit direct exposure. For operations deep within Russian territory, Ukrainian handlers frequently recruit third-party foreign nationals or locals via digital channels, offering substantial financial payouts and promises of extraction or EU relocation upon successful completion of the hit. [2]
While these practices remain highly effective as psychological warfare and strategic deterrence, international observers and human rights organizations note that extrajudicial executions raise long-term concerns regarding international law, due process, and a cycle of violence that could outlast the conventional war. [2][1] cepa.org
[2] acleddata.com
[3] lieber.westpoint.edu
[4] english.nv.ua– Google Search google.com/search?q=Policies…
Pic.: nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
#Ukraine #Russia #FBI
Policies and practices of personal retaliations worldwide by intelligence services of UkraineSince the escalation of the full-scale conflict with Russia, the operations of Ukraine’s primary intelligence agencies—the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) (focused on domestic counter-intelligence and sabotage) and the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR) (military intelligence)—have evolved significantly. [1]
Public reporting, statements by Ukrainian officials, and analyses from international security experts indicate that Ukraine’s approach to targeted operations and retaliations follows specific patterns:
1. Official Stances and AmbiguityStrategic Ambiguity: As a matter of official policy, the Ukrainian government and its intelligence agencies rarely claim direct, official responsibility for specific assassinations or sabotage operations inside Russia or deep behind enemy lines. Instead, they typically employ a policy of plausible deniability or make suggestive, veiled comments attributing the incidents to “karma,” internal Russian dissent, or domestic collaborators.
Retaliation Narrative: In public rhetoric, Ukrainian intelligence leadership (such as HUR chief Kyrylo Budanov) has stated that those who commit war crimes against Ukraine or act as high-level traitors will face justice, implying that covert actions are viewed as legitimate wartime operations against military targets and enemy combatants.2. Typology of Targeted Operations
Independent monitors, such as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), and major investigative outlets report that Ukrainian intelligence operations generally target specific categories of individuals:Occupation Officials and Collaborators: In Russian-occupied territories, middle- and high-ranking local administrators, Moscow-appointed politicians, and local collaborators have frequently been targeted using car bombs, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and targeted shootings.
Military and Intelligence Officers: High-profile Russian military commanders, propagandists, and intelligence officers deep within Russian territory have been assassinated. Notable reported cases include the car bombing of propagandist Darya Dugina, the shooting of former submarine commander Stanislav Rzhitsky, and the bombing that killed military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky.
Defectors and Traitors: Individuals who actively betray Ukrainian military secrets or switch sides to aid Russian forces face targeted intelligence operations. [3]3. Geographical Reach and Methods
Behind Enemy Lines and Inside Russia: While operations began primarily in occupied areas like the Donbas and Crimea, they rapidly expanded into the Russian mainland, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Proxy and Partisan Networks: Many operations are not carried out directly by active-duty Ukrainian officers crossing borders. Instead, the SBU and HUR recruit, fund, and coordinate local proxy networks, anti-Kremlin Russian partisan groups (like the Russian Volunteer Corps or the Freedom of Russia Legion), or localized resistance movements operating inside Russia and occupied zones.
International Remit: While most operations take place within Ukraine and Russia, some intelligence activity has extended globally. For example, Ukrainian special forces and HUR operatives have reportedly engaged in operations against Russian Wagner Group mercenaries and assets in parts of Africa (such as Sudan and Mali) to disrupt Russian state influence and revenue streams globally.4. International Legal and Diplomatic Friction
Western Partner Constraints: Intelligence relationships with Western backers, particularly the U.S. CIA, have historically been structured around intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism, and defensive strategies. Major Western allies have frequently expressed discomfort with extrajudicial targeted killings inside sovereign Russian territory, fearing escalatory risks or violations of international legal norms. As a result, Ukraine generally executes these targeted retaliatory campaigns independently of foreign intelligence oversight.
Legal Debate: International legal analysts note that while targeting active military commanders fits within the framework of taking out enemy combatants during an armed conflict, extrajudicial execution of civilian administrators or media figures raises complex legal questions regarding due process and the boundaries of international humanitarian law. [3, 5]AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/3/…
[2] facebook.com/dailytaskeenoff…
[3] acleddata.com/report/persona…
[4] youtube.com/watch?v=bpCUPwVl…
[5] lieber.westpoint.edu/retalia…
[6] forbes.com/sites/davidkirich…
[7] abcnews.com/International/ci…
[8] nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world…Ukrainian intelligence services have increasingly utilized targeted killings, sabotage, and covert retaliatory operations as an extension of their wartime strategy. While Ukraine’s official military policies emphasize alignment with international humanitarian law regarding conventional warfare, its primary intelligence bodies operate a highly active, unacknowledged campaign targeting individuals perceived as traitors, high-ranking Russian commanders, or high-profile collaborators. [1, 2, 3]
Key Agencies and Leadership Stance
The two primary agencies executing these operations are the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) (internal security and counter-intelligence) and the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR) (military intelligence). [1, 4]The Doctrine of Retribution: High-ranking Ukrainian officials have frequently contextualized these operations as acts of necessary wartime justice. Vasyl Malyuk, the head of the SBU, famously affirmed this stance by stating, “Every crime of the aggressor must be punished.” Internally, intelligence officials have occasionally drawn public comparisons to historical precedents like Israel’s Mossad, indicating a long-term commitment to pursuing individuals who violate Ukrainian sovereignty. [1]
Scope and Geographic Practice
The practice of personal retaliation has expanded across multiple distinct geographic tiers since the 2022 full-scale invasion: [2]Occupied Territories of Ukraine: This is the most active zone of assassination operations. Targets are heavily focused on Russian-appointed middle-ranking occupation officials, local collaborators, and military figures. The methods frequently involve improvised explosive devices (IEDs), car bombs, and localized ambushes. [2]
Inside the Russian Federation: Ukrainian intelligence has repeatedly managed to strike high-profile targets deep within Russian territory. Notable operations include the assassination of Russian military commanders—such as Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia’s nuclear, biological, and chemical defense forces, who was killed in Moscow by a recruited operative using a bomb concealed on an electric scooter. [2]
Global Operations: HUR has expanded its operational footprint internationally to counter Russian influence and personnel abroad. This has included documented deployments of Ukrainian special forces and intelligence elements to conflict zones like Sudan and parts of the Sahel region to target Russian Wagner Group mercenaries.Operational Methodology
Rather than relying entirely on deployed Ukrainian agents, intelligence services often exploit local proxies or recruit disenfranchised individuals to limit direct exposure. For operations deep within Russian territory, Ukrainian handlers frequently recruit third-party foreign nationals or locals via digital channels, offering substantial financial payouts and promises of extraction or EU relocation upon successful completion of the hit. [2]
While these practices remain highly effective as psychological warfare and strategic deterrence, international observers and human rights organizations note that extrajudicial executions raise long-term concerns regarding international law, due process, and a cycle of violence that could outlast the conventional war. [2][1] cepa.org
[2] acleddata.com
[3] lieber.westpoint.edu
[4] english.nv.ua– Google Search google.com/search?q=Policies…
Pic.: forbes.com/sites/davidkirich…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
Policies and practices of personal retaliations globally by intelligence services: comparisons and assessments: #FSB, #FBI, #Mossad
Global Intelligence Retaliation Policies share.gemini.google/y6wRFU7v…
AI Mode:
Intelligence services approach personal retaliation through vastly different legal, political, and operational frameworks. While agencies like Russia’s FSB and Israel’s Mossad utilize extrajudicial targeted eliminations and operations as state-sanctioned policy, the US’s FBI operates strictly as a domestic law enforcement and counterintelligence agency bound by constitutional law. However, historical and contemporary overreaches exist across all three systems. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Comparative Overview of Retaliatory Practices
Intelligence AgencyPrimary MandatePractice of “Personal Retaliation”Legal & Political AccountabilityFSB (Russia)Domestic security, border control, and “near abroad” counterintelligence.State-sanctioned liquidations of dissidents, defectors, and political rivals via covert methods (e.g., radiation, nerve agents).Minimal. Shielded by domestic laws allowing the targeting of “extremists” abroad; operations directly authorized by the executive branch.Mossad (Israel)Foreign intelligence collection, counterterrorism, and covert operations.Targeted assassinations (“Frustration”) against leaders of armed militant groups, terrorists, and threats to state survival.High internal authorization, low international accountability. Subject to strict prime ministerial sign-offs and reviewed by the Supreme Court, but frequently condemned globally.FBI (United States)Domestic law enforcement and counterintelligence.No modern policy of physical liquidation. Historically engaged in covert harassment and systemic disruption of dissident groups via COINTELPRO.High. Strictly bound by the US Constitution, Congressional oversight committees, and judicial warrants.
In-Depth Assessments
1. FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation)
The FSB views personal retaliation as a legitimate tool for enforcing state loyalty and eliminating political threats. [4, 6]Targeting Defectors and Dissidents: Operates globally to neutralize individual “enemies of the state”. Notable high-profile cases include the polonium-210 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London, the Novichok poisoning attempt on Alexei Navalny, and the shooting of defector Maksim Kuzminov in Spain. [4, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Methodology: Often relies on highly specialized toxicological or radiological weapons designed to send a chilling psychological message to other potential dissidents. [7, 8]
Recent Developments: In September 2026, the FBI disrupted an FSB-linked plot on US soil aimed at recruiting local assets to assassinate a prominent Russian dissident in Washington, D.C.. [10, 11]2. Mossad (The Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations)
Mossad’s use of targeted killings is framed strictly around state survival and reactive/preventative self-defense, rather than purely political retaliation. [1, 12]Targeting Terrorist Infrastructure: Historically specialized in hunting down individuals responsible for attacks on Israelis, famously seen in Operation Wrath of God following the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, and modern-day operations against Iranian nuclear scientists and Hamas/Hezbollah commanders. [12, 13, 14]
Methodology: Utilizes highly technical precision strikes, kinetic urban warfare, booby traps, and cyber-physical operations. [13, 15]
Doctrine of Ambiguity: Mossad maintains a strict policy of deliberate ambiguity—neither confirming nor denying involvement in foreign operations—to mitigate international legal repercussions. [13]3. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
As a domestic law enforcement body, the FBI does not possess a mandate for extrajudicial physical retaliation. However, its history shows patterns of systemic, non-lethal retaliation against internal political challengers. [2, 3, 5, 16]The COINTELPRO Era (1956–1971): Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI ran covert operations to “disrupt, misdirect, or otherwise neutralize” domestic political groups, including civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and the Black Panther Party. Tactics involved illegal wiretaps, forged letters to ruin marriages, and fabricated evidence to secure false arrests.
Modern Constraints: Following the 1975 Church Committee Investigations, strict firewalls, judicial warrants (FISA), and statutory limits were built to prevent personal or politically motivated retaliation by agents. Today, overreach typically manifests as surveillance or investigative over-indexing rather than physical operational harm. [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]If you want to delve deeper, please let me know:
Would you like an analysis of how international law treats these different forms of extraterritorial action?
Are you interested in a specific historical case study (e.g., the Litvinenko inquiry or the Munich aftermath)?
Do you want to examine how cyber warfare has changed the landscape of modern intelligence agency retaliation?[1] en.wikipedia.org
[2] fbi.gov
[3] en.wikipedia.org[4] washingtonpost.com
[5] ebsco.com
[6] apnews.com
[7] youtube.com
[8] rferl.org[11] wsoctv.com
[12] en.wikipedia.org
[13] newarab.com
[14] en.wikipedia.org[15] nbcnews.com
[16] aclu.org
[17] ebsco.com
[18] blackpast.org
[19] firstamendment.mtsu.edu
[20] npr.org[21] britannica.com
AI Overview:
Intelligence services globally approach personal retaliation, targeted actions, and extrajudicial operations through wildly divergent legal frameworks, strategic doctrines, and operational practices. While the Russian FSB engages heavily in lethal extraterritorial actions against dissidents and defectors as a form of state-sanctioned retribution, the Israeli Mossad focuses primarily on preemptive and retaliatory targeted killings tied explicitly to national defense and counterterrorism. In contrast, the US FBI is fundamentally a domestic law enforcement and counterintelligence agency operating under strict constitutional boundaries, meaning it does not engage in extraterritorial personal retaliations. [1, 2]
The specific policies, operational styles, and oversight mechanisms of these three agencies vary across key dimensions:
Comparative Framework: FSB vs. FBI vs. Mossad
Dimension Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) US FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) Israeli Mossad (Institute for Intelligence & Special Ops) Primary Mandate Domestic security, border control, and counterintelligence (with broad external reach via the SVR/GRU). Domestic law enforcement, federal criminal investigations, and counterintelligence. External foreign intelligence collection, covert action, and counterterrorism. Legal/Doctrinal Posture State-sanctioned retribution. Legally authorized by Russian domestic law to target “terrorists” and state enemies abroad. Constitutional Rule of Law. Strictly governed by the US Constitution, Executive Order 12333 (assassination ban), and judicial oversight. Targeted Preemption/Retaliation. Operates under state-authorized covert mandates (“targeted killings”) for national survival. Target Profile Dissidents, political opposition, journalists, defectors, and former intelligence officers. International terrorists, foreign spies, cybercriminals, and federal law violators. Transnational terrorists, asymmetric threats, and architects of hostile weapons programs. Primary Methods Poisoning (nerve agents, radioactive isotopes), staged accidents, and transnational repression/harassment. Federal indictment, global extradition, public exposure, and asset forfeiture. Kinetic strikes, targeted assassinations (sabotage, explosive devices), and cyber-disruption. Oversight Mechanism Direct, centralized control by the Kremlin; virtually no independent judicial or legislative check. Strict oversight by the Department of Justice, Congressional committees (HPSCI/SSCI), and federal courts. Direct authorization by the Prime Minister; oversight by specialized executive and security cabinets.
Detailed Institutional Assessments
1. FSB (Russia): Transnational Repression and Defector Retaliation
The FSB, alongside its foreign-facing counterparts (the SVR and GRU), utilizes personal retaliation as a core instrument of statecraft and narrative control.
The Doctrine of Retribution: Russian intelligence operates under a doctrine where treason, defection, or high-profile political opposition are treated as existential threats. Following legislative changes in 2006, Russian agencies received explicit legal authorization to eliminate designated “extremists” or threats outside Russian borders.
Operational Footprint: Operations are designed to send highly public, terror-inducing warnings to other potential dissidents. Notable historical and modern paradigms include the use of Polonium-210 against Alexander Litvinenko, Novichok nerve agents against Sergei Skripal and Alexei Navalny, and a pattern of mysterious window falls or assassinations of exiled oligarchs and military defectors across Europe and the Middle East.
2. FBI (United States): Legal Enforcement and Counter-Repression
The FBI is inherently distinct from the FSB and Mossad because it is not an offensive foreign intelligence service. It does not carry out personal retaliations or extrajudicial killings.
Legal Constraints: The US intelligence apparatus is explicitly banned from engaging in political assassination under Executive Order 12333. The FBI’s operations must strictly adhere to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and criminal procedure laws.
Counterintelligence and Defensive Posture: Instead of executing retaliation, the FBI focuses heavily on preventing other nations from conducting transnational repression on US soil. For instance, when the FSB, the Chinese MSS, or Iranian intelligence services attempt to harass, kidnap, or assassinate dissidents inside the United States, the FBI responds by issuing federal criminal indictments, disrupting espionage networks, and publicly exposing foreign actors. [1, 3]
3. Mossad (Israel): Targeted Killings as Strategic Defense
Mossad has historically utilized targeted elimination (known internally as Pinpoint Preemption) more frequently than almost any other Western-aligned intelligence service. However, its mandate differs sharply from the FSB’s focus on personal or political revenge.
The Doctrine of Deterrence and Defense: Mossad’s targeted operations are overwhelmingly framed around preventing imminent national security threats or responding to severe acts of mass casualty terrorism. While operations like Operation Wrath of God (the systematic targeting of Black September militants after the 1972 Munich Olympics) had an explicit retaliatory component, modern doctrines prioritize disrupting asymmetric warfare networks and non-state actors.
Operational Footprint: Operations are characterized by surgical precision to minimize collateral damage, often utilizing highly sophisticated sabotage, cyber warfare, or kinetic strikes. Targets are strictly restricted to operational combatants, planners of terrorism, or scientists directly engineering weapons of mass destruction against Israel. Each operation requires explicit, formalized sign-off from the Israeli Prime Minister.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-t…
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counte…
[3] americanprogress.org/article…– Google Search google.com/search?q=Policies…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
Global Intelligence Retaliation Policies share.gemini.google/y6wRFU7v…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026
Policies and practices of personal retaliations globally by intelligence services: comparisons and assessments: FSB, FBI, Mossad – Google Search google.com/search?q=Policies…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 16, 2026