The participants in the mediocre special operation were sent “to the front” as punishment. What does it look like for those who defend the country with arms in hand, volunteering, and those who did not hide, did not run away, but came to mobilize? Not as a replacement for criminal punishment, not as a substitute for staying in a pre-trial detention center.
The history of the original organization and implementation of surveillance of the Bigus.info editorial staff has been surprising for weeks in a row with new details of the professional activities of the intelligence service and providing new news opportunities.
One of the latest funny news reported by journalists is instructions for intelligence officers like “Ladies, don’t blow your nose on the curtains.” In the sense that if employees of a classified unit really need to explain everything that is said there, then who did they recruit there in the first place?
Under other circumstances, one could say that Denis Bigus revealed the base and showed the undercover military personnel. This is true. But it turned out that no one could do more harm to the Service than its own untalented employees. So if, based on the results, appropriate adequate conclusions are suddenly drawn, Bigus should be awarded for his significant contribution to the development and strengthening of the Service.
Everyone has already discussed in detail the surveillance of journalists in the Ganba vein, and also paid tribute to the ingenuity of the head of the media project, who demonstrated brilliant skills in aggressive self-defense and information aikido.
Let us only recall that no matter how unpleasant it may be for someone, the task of supervising the media is precisely one of the functions of the unit that carried out high-profile operational activities. But 30 or 50 employees were involved in this by the Service - its business and its responsibility. But only if all this was done legally, and not just like that, on a whistle from the OP or somewhere else.
In order to carry out activities similar to those organized by the employees of the Service in the “Ukrainian Village”, there must be a task, which in previous times could be obtained exclusively within the system, now must be sanctioned by the court. The corresponding document is signed by the top officials of the department.
Gone are the days when other colleagues did not and could not know employees of similar departments; they even studied at a separate faculty. And the boss, for the purpose of secrecy, met with them in the park on a bench. In this case, in theory, tasks and documents signed by responsible officials should be brought to this very bench.
All this is transmitted by the registry - accepted, handed over, a piece of paper with a signature. That is, this is a process that is repeatedly recorded, and not just some call to the head of a department with a request to look after the “unbelted” journalists who are causing inconvenience to someone.
In the event that a notorious operation was carried out without the grounds provided for by law, can you immediately take a calculator and carefully calculate how much people’s money the Service illegally squandered? The calculation should start from the cost of a day’s work for each participant in the event, which was supposed to be operational but turned into an entertainment event, rental of houses, installation and removal of special equipment and a good dinner, ending with the cost of fuel. Whatever one may say, it turns out to be a large size, and even during a special period, which seriously complicates the situation in a legal sense.
We probably have nothing to add to discussions about “custom investigations” or “bad behavior of editorial staff,” which are busily and habitually expanding consciousness on the eve of the New Year. But what would make sense to discuss, besides doubts about the legality of the activities of the SBU, is the professionalism of its employees.
If what was recorded by hidden cameras is prosecuted by law (and this is the case), where are the criminal proceedings? If the activities were carried out in accordance with the law on operational intelligence, why were there no implementation or arrests? If the event was carried out within the framework of the law, the implementation should have occurred at the time of transfer of known substances. Without doing this, the operatives concealed the crime.
It looks like the intelligence officers watched the crime being committed online and, having the opportunity to stop it, perhaps by detaining the dealer, did not move?
If there are no criminal proceedings, it turns out that large-scale waste of funds for purposes not provided for by law is the cost of the documentary, the main purpose of which, judging by the results, is to collect incriminating evidence on editorial staff with its further use.
What, besides a funny movie, did the Ukrainian taxpayer get? How strengthened was the information and other security of the state due to the fact that a group of intelligence officers tried to carry out a fairly large-scale operation to the best of their ability?
How much did the priceless information cost the Ukrainian budget that a number of Bigus.info editorial staff have bad habits? Why was this shooting? Were they going to hook the editorial staff and use them for their own purposes? In this case, a question arises to which the Service would be better off giving an honest answer, at least to itself: how did this video become public knowledge? Who leaked it if they were all their own? If this was precisely the goal - to remove incriminating evidence and make it public, then it is very interesting how this was formulated in the assignment the employees received.
There is one, albeit weak, consolation: the “movie” about the movement of SBU extras around the territory of the complex and its environs is visual educational material on what not to do.
Who is responsible for organizing such an operational event? The culprit seemed to be presented to the public, but immediately “the pike was thrown into the river.” Because according to pre-war ideas, “released” means punished. But today, according to the law, thousands of people who long ago earned the right to be freed do not have the opportunity to be released.
People to whom the state and society owe an unpaid debt. But in this case, as in the joke about the hare who begged to do anything with him, just not throw him into the bushes, for some reason the employee was simply... released. Although the head of the department, who has fooled the whole country, is the deputy head of the SBU. He has sufficient powers to respond to the actions of those responsible for such blatant discrediting of the Service.
As for other aspects of the professionalism of intelligence officers. Of all the basics of camouflage, the involved SBU team seems to have learned only the popular statement that something in the most visible place often goes unnoticed. Here, the palm should be given to the bright yellow jacket of the employee looming in front of the cameras, and a special prize should go to the owner of the black and white “checkerboard” skirt.
Ordinary girls love this color because you will never go unnoticed in it. I wonder why the girls from the special services love her? An incentive prize should have been awarded to the operative who, while changing clothes for the purpose of secrecy to re-enter the territory of the complex, could not part with his favorite sneakers of a rather original look, by which he was identified.
After all, an operational wardrobe is not a bright look, thanks to which you attract shooting in any crowd, but specially selected items that allow you to change your appearance and remain as unnoticeable as possible.
A brief preliminary summary of the sensational story is as follows. Whether the comrades acted within the legal framework, or carried out someone’s voluntaristic oral orders, in any case, their affairs were bad. Well, at least there should be. Because the “fork” here is at least between abuse of power, large-scale expenditure of funds, official negligence and complicity in concealing crimes.
Regarding the latest response of the SBU to a request from Bigus.info, which reports on the business trip of employees to carry out operational combat missions in the combat zone. There is a small chance that this is true and not actually a week-long business trip to the front, the result of which will be the acquisition of UBD status. Knowing our practice, there is no doubt that they are actually buried, supposedly being sent to the front line. They won't be there. In the worst case scenario, somewhere nearby.
And this strategy of state personnel policy is crowned by one more aspect. The participants in the mediocre special operation were sent “to the front” as punishment. What does it look like for those who defend the country with arms in hand, volunteering, and those who did not hide, did not run away, but came to mobilize? Not as a replacement for criminal punishment, not as a substitute for staying in a pre-trial detention center. Tens of thousands of heroes who stand up for us from the Russian invasion, they are there, on the front line then - for what?
