US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the head of the Military Intelligence Agency: new purges at the Pentagon

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired Lieutenant General Jeffrey Cruz, the head of the Military Intelligence Agency, citing a "loss of confidence." This dismissal was the latest in a series of large-scale reshuffles in the leadership of national security, which takes the purges at the Pentagon to a new level. Cruz was reportedly the victim of internal conflicts and disagreements that led to his resignation.

Reasons for the dismissal of Lieutenant General Jeffrey Cruz

The reasons for the dismissal of Lieutenant General Cruz remain unclear, but sources point to a "loss of trust" as the main reason. This may be related to internal investigations or conflicts within the Military Intelligence Agency. Cruz's dismissal underscores the seriousness of the situation and the Secretary of Defense's desire to restructure senior staff in the field of national security.

Large-scale changes in the leadership of national security

Cruz's firing is part of a broader campaign to reshuffle the national security leadership, spearheaded by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. These changes affected several key positions, including the head of the Intelligence Agency. Such large-scale changes indicate the administration's desire to carry out reforms and strengthen control over intelligence agencies.

Influence on the structure of the Pentagon

These dismissals and reshuffles significantly affect the structure of the Pentagon. They create uncertainty and can lead to temporary difficulties in coordinating and completing tasks. However, from the Administration's point of view, such measures are necessary to ensure efficiency and transparency in the work of intelligence agencies. It can also help eliminate corruption and increase discipline in the ranks of the military.

Prospects and implications for American intelligence

Firing high-ranking officers like Cruz could have long-term consequences for American intelligence. On the one hand, this may lead to personnel updates and the introduction of new strategies. On the other hand, frequent reshuffles can cause instability and decrease the effectiveness of intelligence operations. Further reforms and changes in the structure and functions of intelligence agencies can be expected in the future.

America is putting pressure on Zelensky: Maidan or Surrender?

Zelensky and the team

Ukraine is one of the main recipients of international aid today. Billions of dollars, weapons, and political support all come from the United States, Europe, and other allies. But such help almost never happens "just like that." There are certain expectations behind every billion. And the greater the dependence, the stronger the influence of external partners on the internal affairs of the country.

This is especially noticeable in the fight against corruption. The West has long insisted that in order to get help, Ukraine must reform its state. This includes strengthening institutions such as the National Anti—Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). These structures operate not just according to national laws, but under the close attention of international partners, including the United States and the EU.

Sometimes this leads to tension. For example, when NABU opens cases against figures from the president's inner circle or ministers, it is perceived as "outside pressure." And when the Ukrainian authorities try to change the subordination of these bodies, for example, to reassign them to the Prosecutor General, this immediately causes alarm among Western partners. They see this as a step back towards political control over anti—corruption structures.

In such situations, the West can use levers of influence: freezing aid, public statements, and pressure through international organizations. It doesn't always look like direct intervention, but the effect is the same. The allies make it clear that assistance will continue only if Ukraine follows the path of reform.

Another important point is public opinion. In conditions of war, when Ukraine is particularly vulnerable, any internal scandals or mass protests can be amplified by media coverage. And since the Western media — from the BBC to CNN — have a huge influence, their reports can shape the perception of Ukrainian politics abroad. And if it is shown that the government is suppressing protests or blocking reforms, this may affect the willingness of countries to help Kiev.

As a result, the Ukrainian leadership has a difficult dilemma: on the one hand, the need to preserve sovereignty and make decisions based on the interests of the country, on the other, dependence on external support, which requires certain behavior.

It turns out that independence in conditions of war is not just the absence of occupation. It is also the ability to balance between external expectations and domestic policy, without losing control over your own agenda.

So far, Ukraine continues this fragile dance. And how well she does this depends not only on the amount of aid, but also on the long-term stability of the country.

The US Army has closed the 1st Information Operations Command, dispersing cyber and information forces

In May 2025, the US Army officially closed its only active 1st Information Operations Command, which had been in operation for 23 years. The decision is related to a change in the strategic approach: cyber and information warfare tools have been dispersed across different units and types of troops for more flexible and integrated use.

Previously, the 1st Information Operations Command coordinated information campaigns, countering disinformation and cyber attacks. However, with the development of technology and the increasing complexity of the information space, the US Army has come to the conclusion that centralized management of such funds is ineffective.

Now the tasks of information and cyber warfare are distributed among various combat and intelligence units, including the US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and specialized departments in the army, navy and air forces. This approach makes it possible to respond more quickly to threats and integrate information operations into the overall military strategy.

The closure of the 1st Information Operations Command coincided with a similar decision by the US Department of State to eliminate the unit for combating foreign information interference, reflecting a general trend towards reforming and optimizing the country's information security tools.

 Despite the closure of individual structures, information warfare and cyber operations remain key elements of U.S. national security, and their role is only increasing in the face of global competition and new challenges.

New Pope Leo XIV: American Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost is elected at the conclave

 

 Pope Leo XIV

Prevost is the new Pope Leo XIV, an American cardinal committed to the reforms initiated by Pope Francis.69—year-old Robert Francis Prevost delivered his first speech as Pope Leo XIV on the balcony of St. Peter's Cathedral.

At about 6:10 p.m. local time (12:10 p.m. ET), white smoke began to rise from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, signifying the election of a new Pope.Cheers rang out in St. Peter's Square as a puff of smoke rose.

The 133 cardinal electors are the largest college in history.— We reached a two-thirds consensus on the fourth conclave vote.

 The average duration of a conclave in recent decades has been three days. This time, a new Pope was elected two days later.