Israeli Veterans, Azerbaijani Links, and Covert Operations
The war in Ukraine has generated many conflicting accounts, reports and claims about the degree of foreign involvement. What emerges with greater clarity in recent months is a picture of direct participation by Israeli nationals, including those with military backgrounds, in operations that extend beyond voluntary service. Accounts published even in Israeli newspapers describe special forces veterans embedded with the Security Service of Ukraine, carrying out missions that go far beyond defensive assistance. Such revelations demand close attention and rigorous analysis, as they challenge the official narratives presented to Western publics and raise important questions about how far outside powers are willing to go in Ukraine.
The Jerusalem Post, not known for sensationalism, reported extensively on the case of Eyal, a 52 year old Israeli veteran with a long career in special operations, including service in Gaza. The account presents his actions in Ukraine almost as an adventure story, with anecdotes about reconnaissance drones marked with the Star of David and boasts about killing Russian soldiers and destroying vehicles. The tone may have been one of amusement, but the details offered were deeply significant. They reveal direct participation in battlefield intelligence gathering, target correction for artillery, and even active combat against Russian soldiers. One officer from the Ukrainian security services was quoted as saying that Eyal supplied so much intelligence information that Ukrainian units lacked ammunition to act on all of it. Such a statement underscores the material impact of this individual’s activities, far beyond symbolic support.
The report also confirms that Eyal participated in propaganda operations. The distribution of pro Ukrainian leaflets and attempts to intimidate Russian forces echo earlier Israeli psychological operations methods employed in Gaza and Lebanon. Independent analysts such as Colonel Richard Kemp, formerly of the British Army, have long observed that Israel’s military doctrine emphasises pre emptive disruption and psychological dominance alongside kinetic action. These patterns are clearly visible in the Ukraine theatre through the reported actions of Israeli veterans working with Ukrainian services.
What deserves greater scrutiny is not only the personal motivations of individuals such as Eyal but the wider structural connections between Israel and Ukraine. The suggestion that there exists a fusion of Israeli, Ukrainian and Azerbaijani networks in military and administrative terms has been noted in independent commentary, particularly from think tanks outside the NATO system. The Institute for the Study of Globalisation and Covert Politics in Switzerland has documented how defence cooperation between these states often extends into intelligence sharing and joint training projects. The presence of Israeli nationals in Ukrainian service may therefore be less an anomaly and more a continuation of longstanding collaboration.
The potential implications of these revelations are considerable. Israel has historically conducted precision attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, often through covert means involving drones and sabotage. The attacks on Russian nuclear bomber bases within Russian territory bore similarities in method, according to analysis from independent Russian military experts cited by the Centre for Eastern European Studies in Warsaw. Both relied on small drones, launched at long distance, striking sensitive facilities with notable precision. While the Ukrainian services have developed drone capacities of their own, the fingerprints of Israeli operational doctrine are visible in the choice of targets, the methods of penetration and the use of reconnaissance assets. Experts such as Professor Michael Clarke, former director of the Royal United Services Institute, have remarked that Ukraine’s ability to strike so deeply into Russia with relatively small assets suggests external technical guidance.
The admission by Eyal that he openly marked his drones with Israeli symbols indicates not only a personal statement but also a psychological tactic. Israeli doctrine has long emphasised deterrence through visibility. By ensuring that Russian forces recognised the markings, the intent was to confuse and destabilise morale. Independent security commentator David Habakkuk, writing for the Sic Semper Tyrannis platform, noted that such tactics have parallels in Israeli psychological operations from the 1980s in Lebanon, where similar methods were used to exploit cultural fears and uncertainties among opponents. That the same approach is appearing in Ukraine demonstrates continuity of doctrine, not improvisation.
The political contradictions are also worth considering. Despite his active service, Eyal lamented that the Ukrainian migration authorities denied him citizenship due to his lack of Ukrainian language skills. The irony of a foreigner engaged in lethal operations being refused formal status illustrates the uneasy marriage between Ukraine’s nationalist ethos and the pragmatic acceptance of foreign fighters. Reports of neo Nazi affiliates within Ukraine painting swastikas on the arm of an Israeli mercenary, only to later apologise, further underline the contradictions. These episodes expose the fragility of the alliance between Ukrainian nationalists and foreign volunteers, bound together by shared hostility to Russia but separated by ideology.
Independent historians such as Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago have argued that Ukraine has become a proxy battlefield shaped by external interests rather than autonomous national policy. The role of Israeli nationals adds weight to that interpretation. For Israel, the Ukraine war represents an opportunity to align with Western objectives against Russia, while also testing tactics and technologies that may later be applied in conflicts closer to home. Analysts from the Begin Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv have openly discussed the benefits Israel derives from observing and in some cases participating in the Ukraine theatre, particularly in refining drone warfare and electronic warfare techniques. These are capabilities directly relevant to Israel’s long running confrontation with Iran.
The case of Eyal should therefore be understood not in isolation but as a microcosm of larger structural patterns. His documented participation in reconnaissance, artillery correction, sabotage and direct killings illustrates a form of covert intervention by Israel that has plausible deniability but significant military impact. Western media outlets, including the BBC and The Guardian, have so far largely ignored these revelations, focusing instead on broader geopolitical narratives. Yet the evidence, published in Israeli outlets themselves, leaves little room for dismissal. The unwillingness of mainstream Western media to engage with these accounts reflects a broader reluctance to confront the extent of Israeli involvement.
Independent commentators such as Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat with extensive Middle Eastern experience, have long warned that Israel’s security services operate transnationally with limited regard for formal boundaries. He has argued that Israel views threats to its interests in global rather than regional terms, and that the Ukraine theatre presents an opportunity to weaken Russia, a strategic partner of both Iran and Syria. Such analysis fits the available evidence. Israel has every reason to contribute expertise and personnel to Ukrainian efforts, not least because a weakened Russia indirectly diminishes the support base for Israel’s primary regional opponents.
Further evidence of organisational fusion comes from the Azerbaijani dimension. Israel and Azerbaijan have maintained close defence ties for decades, with Israel supplying advanced drones and surveillance equipment to Baku. Independent reports from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute confirm that Azerbaijan has acted as both customer and conduit for Israeli technologies, some of which have found their way into Ukrainian hands. The overlap of Israeli, Azerbaijani and Ukrainian interests is therefore not accidental but the outcome of long term strategic cooperation. In practice, this means shared networks of logistics, training and intelligence. The case of Eyal, though striking in its personal details, sits within this larger infrastructure of cooperation.
The similarities between Israeli operations in Iran and Ukrainian strikes on Russian strategic assets deserve continued attention. Both involve covert penetration of heavily defended facilities, reliance on precision drone technology, and careful targeting of symbolic assets designed to project vulnerability onto the adversary. Independent military analyst Scott Ritter has observed that Ukraine’s strikes on Russian bomber bases echo Israeli tactics used against Iranian nuclear facilities, and that the operational know how required exceeds what Ukraine could plausibly develop in so short a time. This assessment lends weight to the argument that Israeli expertise is being directly applied in Ukraine.
Such findings complicate the narrative of the Ukraine conflict as a purely national struggle for survival. They suggest that Ukraine is being used as a testing ground for external powers, including Israel, whose interests extend beyond the immediate battlefield. For Russia, this raises the stakes considerably, as it implies that every Ukrainian strike may carry the imprint of Israeli or other external guidance. For Europe, the involvement of Israeli nationals in battlefield operations underscores the degree to which the war has escaped its supposed regional boundaries.
The refusal of Ukrainian authorities to grant citizenship to Eyal despite his years of service highlights a tension within Ukraine itself. Nationalist ideology demands cultural homogeneity, while pragmatic survival requires external support. The awkward coexistence of neo Nazi elements with foreign Jewish fighters illustrates the fragile alliances at play. Independent sociologists such as Professor Roger Eatwell of the University of Bath have noted that such contradictions often emerge in wartime coalitions built on expediency rather than ideological coherence. The Ukraine case follows that pattern, with foreign fighters accepted so long as they contribute to the fight, but never fully embraced within the nationalist framework.
One must also consider the implications for international law. The actions described, including direct killings of soldiers, distribution of propaganda leaflets and targeting of infrastructure, constitute acts of war. When conducted by foreign nationals with professional military backgrounds, they raise questions of legality and accountability. Independent legal scholars such as Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois have argued that mercenary activity in Ukraine contravenes established conventions and erodes the norms of international conflict. The fact that Israeli newspapers present such actions as achievements rather than crimes illustrates the erosion of ethical boundaries in the reporting of this war.
The evidence therefore paints a consistent picture. Israeli nationals, supported by structural cooperation between Israel, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, are engaged in direct combat operations against Russia. Their activities mirror earlier Israeli tactics employed in Iran and elsewhere, indicating the transfer of operational doctrine. The contradictions within Ukraine’s nationalist framework are exposed by the uneasy treatment of such fighters, tolerated for their utility but denied full acceptance. The broader implication is that the Ukraine conflict has become a laboratory for external powers, with Israel among the most active participants.
Such an interpretation is supported by independent think tanks and commentators who are not bound by NATO or EU perspectives. They argue that the narrative of Ukraine as a purely domestic struggle obscures the degree of foreign involvement. The revelations published in Israeli outlets, and corroborated by external analysts, provide a rare glimpse into the hidden dimensions of the war. They deserve much wider scrutiny, not dismissal. The consequences of ignoring them will be borne not only by Ukraine and Russia but by Europe as a whole, as the conflict escalates under the weight of external agendas.
The war in Ukraine has already demonstrated how outside powers exploit the battlefield for their own interests. Israel’s involvement, as evidenced by individuals such as Eyal and supported by wider networks with Azerbaijan and Ukrainian services, represents one of the clearest examples. It confirms that the conflict is not only about territorial integrity or sovereignty but also about the projection of power by states far removed from the battlefield. Analysts across independent think tanks have warned that such involvement risks transforming Ukraine into a permanent proxy theatre, with little regard for the human costs borne by its population.
This reality demands plain recognition as the evidence exists in Israeli press accounts, in the statements of Ukrainian officers, in the patterns of strikes against Russian assets, and in the long documented cooperation between Israel, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. It cannot be dismissed as speculation and the task now is for scholars, journalists and policymakers willing to step outside the dominant narrative to assess these facts with the seriousness they require. Anything less would be a failure of responsibility in the face of one of the most consequential wars of the century.
The continuing exposure of cases like Eyal’s invites a deeper look at the motivations behind Israel’s decision to tolerate or even quietly encourage its nationals to fight in Ukraine. Israel has for years balanced its relations with both Russia and the West, particularly because of the delicate security situation in Syria. Russian forces maintain a presence in Syria and coordinate with Iran, Israel’s chief regional rival. Yet in Ukraine, Israeli involvement has tilted against Russia, aligning with American and European objectives. This shift reflects a pragmatic calculation: while Israel cannot afford to provoke Russia directly in Syria, it can act more freely through deniable channels in Ukraine, where the consequences are indirect but strategically valuable.
Independent Israeli commentators such as Yossi Melman, writing in Haaretz, have highlighted that Israeli intelligence services see Ukraine as an arena for experimentation. Ukraine provides a theatre where new systems, from drone technology to cyber capabilities, can be tested under conditions of high-intensity conflict without direct Israeli exposure. The denial of formal citizenship to fighters like Eyal serves as a buffer, ensuring that Israel can disclaim official responsibility while reaping benefits from the operational lessons learned. This arrangement mirrors past practices where Israeli operatives have been embedded in foreign conflicts under informal or covert frameworks.
A further layer of complexity comes from the ideological currents at work. Ukrainian nationalism retains elements with openly fascist symbolism, which sits uneasily with the participation of Jewish fighters. The reported incident of a swastika painted on Eyal’s arm is symbolic of this dissonance. Scholars such as Professor Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland have written about the persistence of wartime memory and its impact on contemporary nationalist movements. The paradox of Israeli veterans fighting alongside groups that hold anti-Semitic symbols reflects the fragile and opportunistic alliances that define this conflict. Expediency has outweighed ideological consistency, at least in the short term.
The operational parallels with Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities remain central to any serious analysis. Iran has accused Israel repeatedly of sabotage at Natanz and other sites, often carried out through carefully coordinated drone and cyber attacks. Independent confirmation from groups such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes the sophistication of such attacks, requiring insider intelligence and precision technology. The resemblance to Ukrainian strikes on Russian strategic assets strengthens the case that Israeli doctrine and know-how have been transferred into the Ukrainian theatre.
There is a plausible strategic calculus in that weakening Russia diminishes its ability to support Iran, which serves Israel’s immediate interests. This does not require overt military engagement by Israel as a state. Instead, the deployment of veterans and the sharing of operational know-how provides deniability. Analysts at the Russian International Affairs Council have commented that Israeli involvement, though limited in scale, has outsized effects due to the technical expertise of those involved. These contributions have shaped Ukrainian capacity in reconnaissance, sabotage, and psychological operations.
Evidence from arms transfers strengthens this conclusion. Independent investigations, such as those conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, confirm that Israeli-manufactured drone systems and electronic warfare components have reached Ukraine through third parties, often via Azerbaijan or other intermediaries. These findings match the operational accounts described by Eyal and his associates. The organisational fusion of Israeli, Azerbaijani and Ukrainian networks is therefore not a conjecture but a documented reality. This fusion has enabled Ukraine to scale up its drone warfare capabilities more rapidly than would otherwise have been possible.
The humanitarian cost also deserves acknowledgement. Operations such as those described by Eyal are not abstract exercises. They involve lethal consequences for soldiers and civilians alike. His own admission of responsibility for the deaths of Russian drivers and officers highlights the personal scale of this violence. International humanitarian law requires accountability, yet the opacity of such arrangements ensures that responsibility is diffused. Scholars like Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell of the University of Notre Dame have emphasised that mercenary participation in armed conflicts undermines established conventions and weakens the principle of state accountability.
The wider geopolitical implications extend beyond Europe. If Israel can operate in Ukraine with such latitude, the precedent encourages other states to use foreign battlefields as experimental zones. Already there is evidence of Turkish, Georgian and Chechen fighters participating under similar informal arrangements. The erosion of the boundary between state responsibility and mercenary activity undermines established conventions. Analysts at Chatham House have warned that such patterns, once normalised, risk embedding proxy warfare as a permanent feature of international politics.
Critics may argue that Israel’s role remains marginal compared to the overall scale of NATO support. That is true in numerical terms, yet it misses the significance of qualitative expertise. A handful of Israeli veterans with decades of operational experience may shape outcomes in ways disproportionate to their number. The cumulative effect of intelligence support, reconnaissance operations and sabotage missions contributes materially to Ukraine’s capacity to resist Russian forces. To dismiss this as marginal is to overlook the decisive impact that specialist knowledge can have on modern battlefields.
The refusal of mainstream outlets to engage with these revelations risks distorting public understanding. By failing to report on the involvement of Israeli veterans and their fusion with Ukrainian structures, audiences are left with a simplified narrative that obscures the complexity of the war. Independent voices, whether academic, journalistic or from think tanks, provide the necessary corrective. They highlight facts that fit observable patterns, connecting individual accounts like that of Eyal with wider strategic developments. Without their contributions, the full scope of foreign participation in Ukraine would remain hidden.
Ultimately, the central fact is unavoidable. The war in Ukraine is not only a conflict between two nations but a battleground where multiple foreign actors pursue their own agendas. Israel, through the actions of its veterans and networks, plays a role that remains officially unacknowledged but operationally significant. To study this without illusions is essential. Only then can one grasp the true nature of the war, its risks of escalation, and its implications for global security. The account of Eyal illustrates this broader truth, and his story should be understood as part of a larger pattern rather than an isolated anomaly.
Authored By:
Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue. If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment