Report from Mykhailo Drapatyi, Yevhenii Khmara, and Pavlo Palisa. The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine briefed me on the overall situation on the frontline. We took a detailed look at the sectors and tasks that require the greatest attention and swift decisions.
In particular, we determined our course of action in response to Russia’s attacks on our country’s infrastructure – specifically, to Russia’s terror against our cities and communities in the border and frontline regions, Kyiv and the region, Odesa region, and our maritime corridor. At every level – the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, other government agencies, intelligence and special services – there is a clearly defined list of measures.
Yevhenii Khmara is preparing decisions that will ensure the prompt implementation of the requests made by corps commanders following our discussions with them over the past few weeks. Pavlo Palisa and the Office team will continue helping coordinate this work. Glory to Ukraine!
— @ZelenskyyUa Jul 24, 2026
Category: Tweets – Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) / Twitter
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Iran and the New Rules of Global Power | Foreign Affairs foreignaffairs.com/united-st…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 24, 2026
#FBI
Attacker shouting ‘allahu akbar’ stabs Jewish man with a screwdriver in #NYC | The Times of #Israel timesofisrael.com/attacker-s…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 24, 2026
NEW: 🇸🇦🇾🇪 Giant Saudi oil tankers began using the Suez Canal to cross to Asia after the Ansar Allah blockade and attacks
— @Megatron_ron Jul 24, 2026
BREAKING: Iran and the US are at verge of facing nuclear bombs and long range ballistic missiles respectively.
Iran officially warned the citizens of gulf countries to move 500m away from the US military bases.
Iran is about to launch strong wave of Missiles at all US military bases in Gulf countries.
— @World_Affairs11 Jul 24, 2026
Global #Security and #Intelligence #News Review
My Opinion: The States And Their Dogs
x.com/mikenov/status/2080631…Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) #CIA #FBI #ODNI
THE DOGS OF THE STATE
My Opinion: In any domestic security organization, their agents are the DOGS OF THE STATE, and they are valued for their loyalty and their viciousness.
Brains are the secondary matter, and reserved for the top of the pyramid.
And the FBI is no exception.
This is a comment to the article: Why I Am Leaving the F.B.I. – nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opini…
FBI Agents: Loyalty vs. Intellect share.gemini.google/mKLEHwQf…
AI Mode
share.google/aimode/idO7VsHi…
Gemini:
Your comment presents a highly critical perspective on the structure and culture of domestic security organizations, contrasting sharply with the themes usually presented by the agency itself.In the 2018 New York Times op-ed “Why I Am Leaving the F.B.I.,” the author, former Special Agent Josh Campbell, argued almost the exact opposite of your premise. He wrote the piece to defend the integrity, independence, and critical thinking of rank-and-file agents against what he saw as relentless partisan political attacks aimed at undermining the bureau. He portrayed the agents as dedicated public servants trying to do complex investigative work impartially.
Your perspective, however, highlights a deeply cynical view of the state’s monopoly on force. By characterizing agents as “dogs of the state” valued primarily for “loyalty and viciousness,” you are tapping into a long-standing critique of hierarchical law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This viewpoint argues that in any strict chain-of-command structure tasked with domestic security, independent thought among the rank-and-file is viewed as a liability rather than an asset. In this view, the “top of the pyramid” dictates policy and targets, while the agents on the ground are expected to act as unquestioning enforcers.
It is a stark rebuttal to the narrative of the independent, truth-seeking agent, framing the FBI instead as a blunt instrument of state power where blind obedience is the most highly rewarded trait.
–AI Mode
share.google/aimode/idO7VsHi…
The ongoing institutional tension within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) centers on an organizational shift under Director Kash Patel that pits absolute personal loyalty against objective intellect, independent analysis, and adherence to the Constitution. [1, 2, 3]
The Shift Toward Personal Loyalty
Historically, FBI agents have pledged their fealty strictly to the U.S. Constitution. However, following the leadership transition to Director Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, the bureau has aggressively leaned into screening for institutional and personal allegiance: [2, 4, 5]Polygraph Screening Expansion: Lie detector tests, traditionally reserved for screening potential hires, counterintelligence threats, or handling critical national secrets, are now used to audit current employees. [6, 7]
Testing for Criticism: Active officials and agents are being questioned on whether they have ever made disparaging remarks, spoken to the media, or cast aspersions on the Bureau’s top leadership. [6, 8]
Mass Attrition: This pivot has resulted in a widespread crackdown on media leaks and political purges, with more than 50 senior officials fired or forced out. This has drastically reshaped the leadership in roughly 40% of FBI field offices. [6, 8, 9]The Role of Intellect and Independence
Critics, including former Bureau officials and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that prioritizing personal fealty significantly compromises the intellectual rigor required for effective intelligence operations: [2, 4]Information Distortion: Observers warn that prioritizing loyalty over intellectual independence creates an echo chamber where intelligence analysts and field agents soften reports or delay difficult truths to please superiors. [3, 10]
Loss of Expertise: Pushing out experienced operational leaders—especially those involved in complex, politically sensitive investigations—degrades the FBI’s collective counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering capabilities. [8, 11]
Internal Fear: The introduction of loyalty polygraphs has created a paralyzing “climate of fear,” shifting the internal focus toward avoiding trouble rather than executing good governance and uncovering empirical facts. [10]Are you interested in exploring specific legal challenges to these policies, analyzing the historical changes in FBI background checks, or investigating how field office leadership has shifted?
[1] fbi.gov
[2] nytimes.com
[3] dallasnews.com
[4] judiciary.senate.gov
[5] youtube.com
[6] youtube.com
[7] facebook.com
[8] propublica.org
[9] youtube.com
[10] youtube.com
[11] youtube.com
–The F.B.I. Is Using Polygraphs to Test Officials’ Loyalty – The New York Times— https://x.com/mikenov/status/2080631555374854156
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 24, 2026
🇷🇺🇨🇳 NEW:
The Economist:
“Russia is likely assisting China in training its military personnel, as well as providing Beijing with intelligence and advanced military technology, which could give China an advantage in the event of a potential conflict over Taiwan.”
— @jacksonhinkle Jul 24, 2026
Former CIA Director James R. Woolsey Dies at 84; Family Says He Suffered from ‘Havana Syndrome’
#JamesWoolsey #CIA #UnitedStates #RIP
— @RksNews Jul 24, 2026
#CIA #FBI #ODNI
THE DOGS OF THE STATE
My Opinion: In any domestic security organization, their agents are the DOGS OF THE STATE, and they are valued for their loyalty and their viciousness.
Brains are the secondary matter, and reserved for the top of the pyramid.
And the FBI is no exception.
This is a comment to the article: Why I Am Leaving the F.B.I. – nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opini…
FBI Agents: Loyalty vs. Intellect share.gemini.google/mKLEHwQf…
AI Mode
share.google/aimode/idO7VsHi…
Gemini:
Your comment presents a highly critical perspective on the structure and culture of domestic security organizations, contrasting sharply with the themes usually presented by the agency itself.In the 2018 New York Times op-ed “Why I Am Leaving the F.B.I.,” the author, former Special Agent Josh Campbell, argued almost the exact opposite of your premise. He wrote the piece to defend the integrity, independence, and critical thinking of rank-and-file agents against what he saw as relentless partisan political attacks aimed at undermining the bureau. He portrayed the agents as dedicated public servants trying to do complex investigative work impartially.
Your perspective, however, highlights a deeply cynical view of the state’s monopoly on force. By characterizing agents as “dogs of the state” valued primarily for “loyalty and viciousness,” you are tapping into a long-standing critique of hierarchical law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This viewpoint argues that in any strict chain-of-command structure tasked with domestic security, independent thought among the rank-and-file is viewed as a liability rather than an asset. In this view, the “top of the pyramid” dictates policy and targets, while the agents on the ground are expected to act as unquestioning enforcers.
It is a stark rebuttal to the narrative of the independent, truth-seeking agent, framing the FBI instead as a blunt instrument of state power where blind obedience is the most highly rewarded trait.
–AI Mode
share.google/aimode/idO7VsHi…
The ongoing institutional tension within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) centers on an organizational shift under Director Kash Patel that pits absolute personal loyalty against objective intellect, independent analysis, and adherence to the Constitution. [1, 2, 3]
The Shift Toward Personal Loyalty
Historically, FBI agents have pledged their fealty strictly to the U.S. Constitution. However, following the leadership transition to Director Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, the bureau has aggressively leaned into screening for institutional and personal allegiance: [2, 4, 5]Polygraph Screening Expansion: Lie detector tests, traditionally reserved for screening potential hires, counterintelligence threats, or handling critical national secrets, are now used to audit current employees. [6, 7]
Testing for Criticism: Active officials and agents are being questioned on whether they have ever made disparaging remarks, spoken to the media, or cast aspersions on the Bureau’s top leadership. [6, 8]
Mass Attrition: This pivot has resulted in a widespread crackdown on media leaks and political purges, with more than 50 senior officials fired or forced out. This has drastically reshaped the leadership in roughly 40% of FBI field offices. [6, 8, 9]The Role of Intellect and Independence
Critics, including former Bureau officials and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that prioritizing personal fealty significantly compromises the intellectual rigor required for effective intelligence operations: [2, 4]Information Distortion: Observers warn that prioritizing loyalty over intellectual independence creates an echo chamber where intelligence analysts and field agents soften reports or delay difficult truths to please superiors. [3, 10]
Loss of Expertise: Pushing out experienced operational leaders—especially those involved in complex, politically sensitive investigations—degrades the FBI’s collective counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering capabilities. [8, 11]
Internal Fear: The introduction of loyalty polygraphs has created a paralyzing “climate of fear,” shifting the internal focus toward avoiding trouble rather than executing good governance and uncovering empirical facts. [10]Are you interested in exploring specific legal challenges to these policies, analyzing the historical changes in FBI background checks, or investigating how field office leadership has shifted?
[1] fbi.gov
[2] nytimes.com
[3] dallasnews.com
[4] judiciary.senate.gov
[5] youtube.com
[6] youtube.com
[7] facebook.com
[8] propublica.org
[9] youtube.com
[10] youtube.com
[11] youtube.com
–The F.B.I. Is Using Polygraphs to Test Officials’ Loyalty – The New York Times
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 24, 2026
Putins styrkor försökte göra det som rysk doktrin alltid drömmer om: ett klassiskt pansargenombrott. Men verkligheten på slagfältet 2026 är brutal — och den är inte på Rysslands sida.
🔥 Vad som faktiskt hände
• Ryssland samlade dussintals stridsvagnar och pansarfordon nära Dobropillia i Donetsk. • Målet: slå hål i den ukrainska linjen med ren råstyrka. • Problemet: Ukraina såg allt — och var redo.Phoenix‑drönarna från Pomsta‑brigaden gjorde det moderna kriget gör bäst: de förvandlade ryskt pansar till brinnande metall på några minuter.
Resultat:
9 stridsvagnar förstörda
2 pansarfordon utslagna3 Grad‑raketkastare eliminerade
dussintals ryska soldater dödadeen offensiv som tog veckor att förbereda försvann på en eftermiddag
🔥 Varför det här är viktigt
Det här är inte bara ett lokalt misslyckande. Det är ett strategiskt mönster:
• Ryssland försöker bryta dödläget med pansar → Ukraina slår ut det med drönare. • Ryssland försöker massera fram styrka → Ukraina använder precision. • Ryssland förlorar 5 000–6 000 soldater i veckan (Rubio, US State Dept).
Det är en armé som bränner manskap och materiel snabbare än de hinner ersätta det.
🎯 Slutsats
Putins pansaroffensiv var inte bara ett misslyckande. Den var ett bevis på att Ryssland inte längre kan genomföra klassiska genombrott i modern drönarkrigföring.
#Ukraina #Ryssland #Donetsk #Drönarkrig #Geopolitik 🇸🇪— @jalle51 Jul 24, 2026