Michael Novakhov (@mikenov)Global #Security and #Intelligence #News Review
Global News Roundup July 24, 2026 share.gemini.google/sYgO9tla…
AI Mode
share.google/aimode/1fp5k0kD…

Michael Novakhov (@mikenov)Global #Security and #Intelligence #News Review
Article Summary
Limitations and Speculation share.gemini.google/l4X0FAWm…
x.com/mikenov/status/2080651…

Michael Novakhov (@mikenov)Iran and the New Rules of Global Power | Foreign Affairs foreignaffairs.com/united-st…

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

Michael Novakhov (@mikenov)PROXY WARS AND THE GLOBAL PEACE
Global #Security and #Intelligence #News Review
Proxy Wars, Hemispheres, and AI share.gemini.google/zqi1l3NF…
Prompt - My Opinion:
In targeting air attacks, with satellites and AI, there is a certain symmetry in this asymmetric world and wars: US vitally assists Ukraine in its deep strikes in Russia, and Russia does the same by vitally helping Iran to target the CIA sites in the Middle East. Lavrov and Rubio had nothing much to talk about in Manila, in this context. Also, with regard to the hemispheres, aren't they more cultural-political, than geographic; what are their true boundaries, and who determines them? 

Gemini:
The symmetry you are observing is the defining architecture of modern great-power competition. Direct conflict between nuclear powers is off the table, so the battlefield has been outsourced to proxies, guided by the most advanced intelligence architectures in human history.

The Architecture of Reciprocal Proxy Attrition

Both Washington and Moscow are leveraging their satellite intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) networks, combined with AI-driven data synthesis, to act as the central nervous systems for their respective partners.

By supplying precise targeting telemetry rather than pulling the trigger themselves, the U.S. enables Ukrainian deep strikes into Russian territory, while Russia reportedly provides critical targeting data to Iran and its proxy network to threaten U.S. and allied assets in the Middle East. This allows both powers to inflict severe strategic friction on one another while maintaining the thin veil of plausible deniability required to prevent a direct conventional war.

In an environment where mutual bleeding is the primary strategy, diplomacy is often reduced to theater. This is exactly why the July 2026 meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Manila was so brief and unproductive. The talks on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit lasted just 35 minutes. While Lavrov publicly called further U.S. arms to Ukraine "unacceptable", both men pointedly ignored shouted questions from reporters regarding Russia's assistance in targeting U.S. forces in the Middle East. When the geopolitical baseline is reciprocal proxy targeting, there is very little for diplomats to actually negotiate.

The Fiction of Geographic Hemispheres

You are entirely correct in your second premise: in modern discourse, "hemispheres" are almost purely cultural and political constructs that have hijacked geographic terminology.

Geographically, the Equator is an objective physical reality based on the Earth's rotation, dividing North and South. However, the East/West divide is inherently arbitrary. The Prime Meridian (0° longitude) runs through Greenwich, England, simply because the British Empire held the naval and scientific hegemony to dictate the standard at the 1884 International Meridian Conference.

The true boundaries of these concepts are not defined by cartographers, but by geopolitical alignment, economic integration, and hegemony:

The "West" vs. The "East": Historically rooted in the Cold War divide between capitalist democracies and the communist bloc, the political "West" completely ignores geography. Australia and New Zealand are universally considered part of the "West" despite being deep in the geographic Eastern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, Latin American countries—which share the geographic Western Hemisphere with the U.S.—are frequently excluded from the political definition of "The West."

The Global North vs. The Global South: This is the modern evolution of the hemisphere concept. The "Global North" represents advanced, industrialized democracies and includes geographic southern outliers like Australia. The "Global South" includes developing or unaligned nations, many of which (like India, Mexico, and much of North Africa) sit entirely within the geographic Northern Hemisphere.

Who determines them?
The dominant military and economic powers of the era. These boundaries are drawn to establish an "in-group" (shared values, security umbrellas, integrated markets) and an "out-group" (adversaries, resource providers, unaligned states). The lines shift not when the Earth moves, but when global power structures fracture and realign.
-

AI Mode:
Proxy Wars, Hemispheres, and AI
share.google/aimode/qWx6iBxX…

The intersection of proxy wars, hemispheric geopolitics, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents the frontier of modern global conflict. AI is fundamentally changing how powerful nations project power through third parties across the globe. [1, 2]
🌎 1. Hemispheric Power Dynamics

The Global North/West: Uses AI for high-end surveillance, predictive intelligence, and autonomous precision drone strikes.
The Global South: Becomes the testing ground for algorithmic warfare, digital disinformation campaigns, and low-cost drone tech.
Tech Hegemony: The US and China weaponize cloud infrastructure and AI models to lock smaller nations into their respective spheres of influence. [3, 4]

🤖 2. The Evolution of Proxy Wars

Algorithmic Proxies: Traditional proxy wars relied on sending weapons to rebel groups or smaller nations; today, proxies are gifted AI-driven cyber weapons, targeting algorithms, and facial recognition software.
Plannable Deniability: Planners use AI to launch deepfake campaigns or automated cyberattacks through proxy actors, making direct attribution nearly impossible. [5, 6, 7]
Low-Cost Autonomous Warfare: AI allows small proxy forces to deploy mass fleets of cheap commercial drones, neutralizing the expensive military hardware of larger states. [8]

🛡️ 3. Key Risks and Implications

Conflict Escalation: AI speeds up military decision-making, leaving human leaders less time to de-escalate crises before they spiral. [9, 10]
Ethical Vacuum: When AI errors result in civilian casualties during a proxy conflict, accountability vanishes between the AI developer, the supplying nation, and the proxy group using it.
Global Fragmentation: The world risks dividing into strict digital hemispheres, where data privacy, AI ethics, and technological standards are completely incompatible.

I can help you explore this topic further if you tell me:
Do you want to focus on a specific region? (e.g., the Middle East, Eastern Europe, or the South China Sea)

Are you looking for historical case studies or future predictions?
Would you like to analyze the economic impact of this tech divide?
Let me know how you would like to expand your research.

[1] tandfonline.com

[2] oric.superior.edu.pk
[3] academic.oup.com
[4] forbes.com
[5] bryanlopez.com
[6] proxyrack.com
[7] withsherlock.ai
[8] forbes.com
[9] pilac.law.harvard.edu
[10] strikeorbit.com

Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en)Lavrov on tomorrow's meeting with US Secretary of State Rubio:

"As for President Trump's predictions about the war in Ukraine moving closer to a settlement, I'll ask Marco Rubio about that tomorrow."

Lavrov will meet with Rubio for the first time in nearly a year.

The meeting is reportedly scheduled for Thursday, July 23, in Manila, where the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Forum is taking place.

The face-to-face talks between Lavrov and Rubio - the first since last September - will, according to Lavrov, focus on Ukraine and the Anchorage agreements, which, as the Kremlin claimed, were reached by Putin and President Trump.

"We are proceeding on the assumption that, at least for now, our American colleagues have not rejected their own proposals, which were put forward and are now well known to everyone," Lavrov said.

Lavrov will likely bring a tougher stance from the Kremlin to the talks with Rubio; according to Bloomberg sources in Moscow, the Kremlin has decided to abandon the idea of a "territorial swap" with Kyiv.

According to the agency’s sources, Putin no longer intends to relinquish parts of the Sumy and Kharkiv regions, which he now plans to retain as a buffer zone.

According to Bloomberg sources, Putin still believes he will capture the entire Donbas by the end of this year and does not plan to engage in negotiations until that happens.
Video

NEXTA (@nexta_tv)A meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has begun in Manila.

The main topic of the talks is the war in Ukraine.
Video

Reuters (@Reuters)EXCLUSIVE: Iran strikes on CIA facilities prompt questions about possible Russian role reut.rs/4fglxBt reut.rs/4fglxBt

Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) #Security Shake-ups: #Ukraine, #Israel - Google Gemini gemini.google.com/app/86301d…
These recent, seismic shifts at the apex of both the Ukrainian and Israeli security apparatuses reveal a shared trajectory. Leaders navigating protracted, existential conflicts are actively dismantling traditional organizational frameworks, choosing to override entrenched bureaucracies in favor of loyalists, outsiders, and commanders who can force immediate tactical pivots.
Here is how the command structures in both nations are being rewired.
-
AI Mode:
share.google/aimode/DaE3hYkW…
The overlapping connection between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's military inner circle and Israel's foreign intelligence agency is defined by Major General Roman Gofman and Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Both countries have undertaken unprecedented overhauls of their top military and intelligence brass, bringing hardline battlefield generals into the highest seats of wartime strategy.
🇮🇱 The New Mossad Chief: A Shift to Field Generals
On June 2, 2026, Major General Roman Gofman officially took command as the new Director of the Mossad, succeeding David Barnea. Gofman's appointment represents a historic and highly unconventional shift for Israel's premier spy agency: [1, 5, 6, 7]
No Traditional Espionage Background: Unlike his predecessors, Gofman is not a career intelligence officer or agent recruiter. He is a seasoned combat commander from the IDF Armored Corps. [2, 6, 8, 9]

Soviet-Born Milestone: Born in Belarus, Gofman is the first USSR-born official to ever lead the Mossad. This background gives him a deep, intrinsic understanding of regional dynamics connected to post-Soviet states, including Russia. [2, 6]
Proximity to Netanyahu: Before taking over the agency, Gofman served directly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military secretary. He is known for a hawkish stance, including internal strategy assessments that a direct military confrontation could collapse the Iranian regime. [5, 6, 9, 10]
🇺🇦 Zelensky and His Generals: The 2026 Reshuffle

Simultaneously, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has entirely restructured his wartime cabinet, shifting away from the "old guard" military establishment to a younger generation: [11, 12, 13]
The Sacking of Gen. Syrskyi: Following intense public protests in Kyiv, Zelensky dismissed General Oleksandr Syrskyi as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Syrskyi was widely criticized by soldiers and the public for utilizing rigid, Soviet-style top-down command structures that resulted in high troop casualties. [14, 15]
The New Army Chief: Zelensky replaced Syrskyi with 43-year-old Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi. Drapatyi is a highly respected, tech-focused, and modern field commander seen as a leader capable of integrating advanced drone and missile tech onto the frontlines. [3, 11, 12, 14, 16]

The Rise of Spy Chief Budanov: Crucially, earlier in January 2026, Zelensky named Kyrylo Budanov—the famously aggressive head of Ukraine's HUR military intelligence—as his Presidential Chief of Staff. Budanov's elevation placed an active spymaster at the absolute center of Ukraine’s geopolitical, military, and diplomatic decision-making. [13, 17, 18]
🔄 The Strategic Intersection
The synchronous rise of Roman Gofman in Israel and Kyrylo Budanov / Mykhailo Drapatyi in Ukraine underlines a shared global reality: [1, 3, 13]

The Twilight of Diplomatic Intelligence: Both Netanyahu and Zelensky have sidelined traditional, civilian-style bureaucrats in favor of bold, aggressive field generals. [9, 17]
Combating the Russia-Iran Axis: As Russia relies heavily on Iranian military drones and ballistic technology to strike Ukraine, the operational synergy between Ukraine’s military apparatus (directed by Budanov) and the Mossad (led by Gofman) remains a critical point of intelligence sharing and covert warfare strategy. [1, 13, 17, 19, 20]
[1] timesofisrael.com

[2] x.com
[3] facebook.com

[4] youtube.com
[5] reuters.com
[6] youtube.com
[7] youtube.com
[8] middleeasteye.net
[9] moderndiplomacy.eu
[10] cnn.com
[11] cnn.com
[12] jpost.com
[13] bbc.com
[14] jpost.com
[15] apnews.com
[16] yahoo.com
[17] cnn.com
[18] youtube.com
[19] nytimes.com
[20] ukrinform.net
-

Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) #Security Shake-ups: #Ukraine, #Israel - Google Gemini gemini.google.com/app/86301d…
These recent, seismic shifts at the apex of both the Ukrainian and Israeli security apparatuses reveal a shared trajectory. Leaders navigating protracted, existential conflicts are actively dismantling traditional organizational frameworks, choosing to override entrenched bureaucracies in favor of loyalists, outsiders, and commanders who can force immediate tactical pivots.
Here is how the command structures in both nations are being rewired.
-
AI Mode:
share.google/aimode/DaE3hYkW…
The overlapping connection between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's military inner circle and Israel's foreign intelligence agency is defined by Major General Roman Gofman and Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Both countries have undertaken unprecedented overhauls of their top military and intelligence brass, bringing hardline battlefield generals into the highest seats of wartime strategy.
🇮🇱 The New Mossad Chief: A Shift to Field Generals
On June 2, 2026, Major General Roman Gofman officially took command as the new Director of the Mossad, succeeding David Barnea. Gofman's appointment represents a historic and highly unconventional shift for Israel's premier spy agency: [1, 5, 6, 7]
No Traditional Espionage Background: Unlike his predecessors, Gofman is not a career intelligence officer or agent recruiter. He is a seasoned combat commander from the IDF Armored Corps. [2, 6, 8, 9]

Soviet-Born Milestone: Born in Belarus, Gofman is the first USSR-born official to ever lead the Mossad. This background gives him a deep, intrinsic understanding of regional dynamics connected to post-Soviet states, including Russia. [2, 6]
Proximity to Netanyahu: Before taking over the agency, Gofman served directly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military secretary. He is known for a hawkish stance, including internal strategy assessments that a direct military confrontation could collapse the Iranian regime. [5, 6, 9, 10]
🇺🇦 Zelensky and His Generals: The 2026 Reshuffle

Simultaneously, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has entirely restructured his wartime cabinet, shifting away from the "old guard" military establishment to a younger generation: [11, 12, 13]
The Sacking of Gen. Syrskyi: Following intense public protests in Kyiv, Zelensky dismissed General Oleksandr Syrskyi as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Syrskyi was widely criticized by soldiers and the public for utilizing rigid, Soviet-style top-down command structures that resulted in high troop casualties. [14, 15]
The New Army Chief: Zelensky replaced Syrskyi with 43-year-old Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi. Drapatyi is a highly respected, tech-focused, and modern field commander seen as a leader capable of integrating advanced drone and missile tech onto the frontlines. [3, 11, 12, 14, 16]

The Rise of Spy Chief Budanov: Crucially, earlier in January 2026, Zelensky named Kyrylo Budanov—the famously aggressive head of Ukraine's HUR military intelligence—as his Presidential Chief of Staff. Budanov's elevation placed an active spymaster at the absolute center of Ukraine’s geopolitical, military, and diplomatic decision-making. [13, 17, 18]
🔄 The Strategic Intersection
The synchronous rise of Roman Gofman in Israel and Kyrylo Budanov / Mykhailo Drapatyi in Ukraine underlines a shared global reality: [1, 3, 13]

The Twilight of Diplomatic Intelligence: Both Netanyahu and Zelensky have sidelined traditional, civilian-style bureaucrats in favor of bold, aggressive field generals. [9, 17]
Combating the Russia-Iran Axis: As Russia relies heavily on Iranian military drones and ballistic technology to strike Ukraine, the operational synergy between Ukraine’s military apparatus (directed by Budanov) and the Mossad (led by Gofman) remains a critical point of intelligence sharing and covert warfare strategy. [1, 13, 17, 19, 20]
[1] timesofisrael.com

[2] x.com
[3] facebook.com

[4] youtube.com
[5] reuters.com
[6] youtube.com
[7] youtube.com
[8] middleeasteye.net
[9] moderndiplomacy.eu
[10] cnn.com
[11] cnn.com
[12] jpost.com
[13] bbc.com
[14] jpost.com
[15] apnews.com
[16] yahoo.com
[17] cnn.com
[18] youtube.com
[19] nytimes.com
[20] ukrinform.net
-

Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) #Security Shake-ups: #Ukraine, #Israel - Google Gemini gemini.google.com/app/86301d…
These recent, seismic shifts at the apex of both the Ukrainian and Israeli security apparatuses reveal a shared trajectory. Leaders navigating protracted, existential conflicts are actively dismantling traditional organizational frameworks, choosing to override entrenched bureaucracies in favor of loyalists, outsiders, and commanders who can force immediate tactical pivots.
Here is how the command structures in both nations are being rewired.
-
AI Mode:
share.google/aimode/DaE3hYkW…
The overlapping connection between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's military inner circle and Israel's foreign intelligence agency is defined by Major General Roman Gofman and Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Both countries have undertaken unprecedented overhauls of their top military and intelligence brass, bringing hardline battlefield generals into the highest seats of wartime strategy.
🇮🇱 The New Mossad Chief: A Shift to Field Generals
On June 2, 2026, Major General Roman Gofman officially took command as the new Director of the Mossad, succeeding David Barnea. Gofman's appointment represents a historic and highly unconventional shift for Israel's premier spy agency: [1, 5, 6, 7]
No Traditional Espionage Background: Unlike his predecessors, Gofman is not a career intelligence officer or agent recruiter. He is a seasoned combat commander from the IDF Armored Corps. [2, 6, 8, 9]

Soviet-Born Milestone: Born in Belarus, Gofman is the first USSR-born official to ever lead the Mossad. This background gives him a deep, intrinsic understanding of regional dynamics connected to post-Soviet states, including Russia. [2, 6]
Proximity to Netanyahu: Before taking over the agency, Gofman served directly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military secretary. He is known for a hawkish stance, including internal strategy assessments that a direct military confrontation could collapse the Iranian regime. [5, 6, 9, 10]
🇺🇦 Zelensky and His Generals: The 2026 Reshuffle

Simultaneously, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has entirely restructured his wartime cabinet, shifting away from the "old guard" military establishment to a younger generation: [11, 12, 13]
The Sacking of Gen. Syrskyi: Following intense public protests in Kyiv, Zelensky dismissed General Oleksandr Syrskyi as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Syrskyi was widely criticized by soldiers and the public for utilizing rigid, Soviet-style top-down command structures that resulted in high troop casualties. [14, 15]
The New Army Chief: Zelensky replaced Syrskyi with 43-year-old Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi. Drapatyi is a highly respected, tech-focused, and modern field commander seen as a leader capable of integrating advanced drone and missile tech onto the frontlines. [3, 11, 12, 14, 16]

The Rise of Spy Chief Budanov: Crucially, earlier in January 2026, Zelensky named Kyrylo Budanov—the famously aggressive head of Ukraine's HUR military intelligence—as his Presidential Chief of Staff. Budanov's elevation placed an active spymaster at the absolute center of Ukraine’s geopolitical, military, and diplomatic decision-making. [13, 17, 18]
🔄 The Strategic Intersection
The synchronous rise of Roman Gofman in Israel and Kyrylo Budanov / Mykhailo Drapatyi in Ukraine underlines a shared global reality: [1, 3, 13]

The Twilight of Diplomatic Intelligence: Both Netanyahu and Zelensky have sidelined traditional, civilian-style bureaucrats in favor of bold, aggressive field generals. [9, 17]
Combating the Russia-Iran Axis: As Russia relies heavily on Iranian military drones and ballistic technology to strike Ukraine, the operational synergy between Ukraine’s military apparatus (directed by Budanov) and the Mossad (led by Gofman) remains a critical point of intelligence sharing and covert warfare strategy. [1, 13, 17, 19, 20]
[1] timesofisrael.com

[2] x.com
[3] facebook.com

[4] youtube.com
[5] reuters.com
[6] youtube.com
[7] youtube.com
[8] middleeasteye.net
[9] moderndiplomacy.eu
[10] cnn.com
[11] cnn.com
[12] jpost.com
[13] bbc.com
[14] jpost.com
[15] apnews.com
[16] yahoo.com
[17] cnn.com
[18] youtube.com
[19] nytimes.com
[20] ukrinform.net
-