Moscow slaps Telegram founder on wanted list, Durov responds with one-finger salute Russia has charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorism and placed him on an international wanted list. The country's Federal Security Service (FSB) announced the charges on Wednesday, alleging that Telegram failed to remove channels, chats, and bots used by Ukrainian intelligence to recruit young Russians …
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmdjpmmng7o
The attacks in north London were ordered on behalf of Russia, the BBC has revealed.
Lavrynovych carried them out after being recruited by Russian-speaking Telegram user "EL" who promised him payment. He had previously been hired by the same unknown figure to put up far-right posters.
The problem with the internet today is that it is getting much harder to know whether to trust published reports.
But I note that in June of last year, US Media outlet Newsweek published a story suggesting that the Telegram Messenger application had ties to Russia's FSB agency.
Here's a link to the article:-
https://www.newsweek.com/telegram-messenger-russia-fsb-ties-report-2083491
Here is a link to the underlying reporting that formed the basis of the Newsweek story:-
https://istories.media/en/stories/2025/06/10/telegram-fsb/
So which is it? Is Telegram run by someone with a real axe to grind against their country of birth, or is this latest reporting a false flag, designed to lure the unsuspecting to use Telegram because the FSB have now managed to back-door their way in?
And yes, I'm extrapolating a bit there... but, as we all know, in war, the first casualty is always truth.
Not sure I believe any of this - no offense to el Reg, Newsweek, or any of the other authors... It's just too hard to tell these days.
"has ties to" is one of those weaselly conspiracy-esque phrases that you should mostly ignore.
That Russia's FSB has managed to intercept some limited portion of Telegram traffic due to the necessity of that traffic travelling throughout Russia, and that maaybe they've been successful in decrypting some of it, is totally plausible, although the article contains really no evidence of the second part of that. My, also non-evidenced, guess is that they'd want to do traffic analysis, and also archive all ciphertext because sometimes session keys turn up later on somebody's device when they're arrested/compromised.
However that's a long way from them planting false-flag stories to encourage Telegram use because they've somehow controlled/coopted it, at the very same same they're banning Telegram use and promoting their own solution that definitely is controlled by the Russian state.
It's likely that Telegram itself isn't the problem, but various people would prefer that some of the stuff you can find there wasn't there. Telegram has been open to almost everything, very infrequently removing anyone, so it has been used to communicate by a wide assortment of unsavory people. Given its popularity in Russia, it's virtually guaranteed that they've had a crack at breaking its encryption and getting access to people with information about its internals, but it would be hard to know how successful they have been at that.
Sproggit,
I doubt this is any kind of "false flag", in the sense that the Russians are trying to replace Telegram with an app they control - and have been doing so for a couple of years. And Ukrainian intelligence really has been recruiting civilians in Russia to carry out acts of sabotage or do recce for them. Also while they've recruited some willing volunteers, it's pretty clear they've also coerced and/or tricked people into it. The Crimean bridge bombing, for example, was done by having a Russian delivery company move a massive package across the bridge, and then detonating it right as the truck passed a petrol tanker train. Doing severe damage to a legitimate military target, that was a key part of Russia's military logistics - but rather hard on the poor driver (and those of the couple of cars he was next to at the time) - who were just going about their normal night's work.
Of course, none of that may have used Telegram. The Russians have also been massively reliant on both Starlink and Telegram for frontline military communications, which means they can't just ban it. Losing access to Starlink hurt them a lot - from stuff I've read it's been suggested that a sudden stop on Telegram would also do major damage to their military comms - which they've never managed to get fully working in Ukraine.
On the other hand, getting ahead (or just surviving) in business in Russia often involves dodgy contacts with the FSB - so it's equally possible the answer could be "both".
Losing access to Starlink hurt them a lot - from stuff I've read it's been suggested that a sudden stop on Telegram would also do major damage to their military comms - which they've never managed to get fully working in Ukraine.
citation needed Ukraine was generous in supplying Russia with Starlink, but it's importance may have been overrated, as would Telegram. Given neither are secure and could be assumed compromised, I very much doubt they'd be part of C3I. Especially as Starlink terminals happily transmit their locations, which is an obvious risk, if that data can be intercepted.
But there's also the typical neo-Orientalism and assumption that Russians are ignorant 'orcs'. Not a nation who's rapidly developed and fielded Starlink competitors and other EWAR systems, has arguably better radars than us.. And other operators are available. So China's got Qianfan and Guoawang as Starlink competitors, plus Russia's been busy with Rassvet and Sfera. And I think Rassvet had another launch last week. I don't think either Russia or China's constellations are complete yet, but they're getting there.
Plus following on from the outbreak of Ukraine's civil war, Russia has been launching classified stuff which may or may not include ELINT that's been used to detect and target Ukrainian mobile phone carriers. Or they might just be buying that data from commercial operators. But Russia told their troops not to take unauthorised devices onto the battlefield, because carrying easily detected radio beacons is obviously a bad idea. They've also got drones with variations on Stingray that are being used to detect and target Ukrainian mobiles.
So it's a dangerous assumption that Russia is technologically inferior. Ukraine will have captured Russian comms kit, so they, and their allies will have a good idea what they are actually using.
The Starlink issue is that Russia were heavily reliant on it for long-range realtime video-control of drones inside Ukraine. There just isn't anything remotely comparable. Russia is not rapidly fielding anything, that's you making stuff up. They're struggling to even get basic low-bandwidth coverage as their budget is pulled in all directions and Ukraine is beginning to strike their space facilities. China's SpaceSail will surely get there pretty rapidly, but currently is still years behind the coverage, reliability and bandwidth of Starlink.
technologically inferior
It's not that, it's that all technology everywhere depends on global supply chains and Russia has to establish theirs in the teeth of some of most severe sanctions seen in the modern age.
citation needed
Jellied Eel,
Citation not happening, because I can't exactly remember. I think I heard it from Michael Kofman (who is a good source who doesn't tend to exaggerate or over-dramatise) on an episode of the War on the Rocks podcast. As I remember it he was discussing comment from Russian the kind of Russian mil-blogger Telegram channels that he follows - which are of varying reliability themselves. And of course, they were using Telegram to sometimes criticise the Russian Ministry of Defence - so it's also in their interests to say Telegram is vital. But I've seen other stories of units having to resort to Telgram to get through, from Russian sources for years. The only sources I read that quote from Russian Telegram are Mark Galeotti (a Russia analyst who I've a lot of time for), Rob Lee and Michael Kofman - who I came across discussing the Russian military build-up in 2021-2022 and were the ones who convinced me Russia was going to invade. Galleotti was sure they wouldn't.
The stories of crap comms within Ukraine have been consistent from Russian sources throughout the war, and from the very beginning. And is well corroborated by the very fact they were using Starlink at all, given the very real risks that you identify. I also remember Igor Girkin talking about it a lot, who's consistently criticised the conduct of the war in Ukraine from the POV of a Russian nationalist who thinks that they're doing a pisspoor job; He used to call Shoigu, "the Plywood Marshal" and took to calling Putin, "our unique strategic advantage". The man might be a war criminal, but he seems to have been a decent military analyst, with a sharp tongue, and you also can't deny his personal commitment, skill and bravery - given the success he achieved in starting a civil war in 2014.
But there's also the typical neo-Orientalism and assumption that Russians are ignorant 'orcs'. Not a nation who's rapidly developed and fielded Starlink competitors and other EWAR systems, has arguably better radars than us
No neo-orientalism here. I just happen to agree with Igor Girkin that the Russian army leadership are pisspoor at their jobs, and both their strategy and tactics in Ukraine have sucked. They invaded on about 13 axes of advance, with less than 200,000 troops on a front of over 1,000km! That pretty much guaranteed a disaster! Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov is supposed to be an old tank general - he ought to know better than that! Their logistics (and thus planning) at the start of the war was also an absolute disaster!
On the other hand, the tactical retreats from Kyiv, and later Kherson, were conducted brilliantly - retreating in the face of the enemy is bloody hard. Particularly in Kherson where the Ukrainians were on the offensive, and Russia had tens of thousands of men on the wrong side of a very wide river. Clearly Russia's staff-work is much better than Ukraine's. Also Surovikin was brought in as overall commander and made an immediate difference, including putting up an extremely good defence against Ukraine's counter-offensive - which showed that Ukraine's staff-work sucks, which makes sense given how ad hoc Ukraine's war effort is.
I don't see any Russian equivalent to Starlink doing them much good in Ukraine at the moment. Nor do I see any argument that Russia has the best radars, it wasn't true in the Cold War, and I don't see any evidence it's true now. Russia's electronic warfare has been consistently very good, they were better at it than NATO for much of the Cold War, although some NATO countries have made big advances in EW in recent years - and I get the idea that Russia is still fielding mostly old EW kit, which is still good, but less effective than modern software defined radio based kit. However I'd be prepared to be proved wrong, because as a civilian without specific clearance, so much of EW and radar is secret that it's very hard to know much for sure.
Russians are no stupider than anyone else. But dictatorships do tend to do stupid things in similar ways. And Russia is not the Soviet Union, which had a lot more resources at its disposal, and so we able to keep up (or just behind) NATO in lots of different technological areas. The only areas that I can think of that Russia are still around technological parity with NATO would be submarines and drone warfare (once they get over their reliance on Starlink). They've still got good EW, air defence and aircraft, but are steadily falling behind. And being almost as good, and having numbers, is often going to be good enough. They also started the war with lots of specialist capabilities like military engineering and mine warfare, which I suspect have taken a lot of damage, and will be hard to reconstitute afterwards.
No neo-orientalism here. I just happen to agree with Igor Girkin that the Russian army leadership are pisspoor at their jobs
Ah. That explains a lot. You believe the Girkin, the original 'little green man' who single handly (well, almost) captured Sloviansk? Then held it (well, a few buldings) until the UAF went WTF? and summarily evicted him. But a former oligarch's bodyguard who found a few dozen volunteers in Crimea, called them 'spetsnaz' and murdered people on his own initiative. Meanwhile, the actual Russian spetsnaz remained in Crimea, along with the marines and paras, wondering WTF Girkin was doing. He gave us quite a lot of propaganda value though.
They invaded on about 13 axes of advance, with less than 200,000 troops on a front of over 1,000km! That pretty much guaranteed a disaster!
That's just the Milley 3-day war meme, or the usual 'full scale military invasion' thing. So If you believe that, you believe that Russia seriously intended to capture and hold Kiev, a city of around 3m with a force of <50,000 vs Ukraine's 600k UAF, police and militias. Russians might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. But then there were the good'ol Institute for the Promotion of War maps showing big, red chunks of Ukraine that Russia captured in the first few days.
On the other hand, the tactical retreats from Kyiv, and later Kherson, were conducted brilliantly - retreating in the face of the enemy is bloody hard. Particularly in Kherson where the Ukrainians were on the offensive, and Russia had tens of thousands of men on the wrong side of a very wide river.
Which they'd bridged. It's almost as if they'd planned for this. It's almost as if they plan was a show of force to draw the UAF away from their planned operation to recapture the DPR, LPR and Crimea, which worked. So Kiev went 'Ok, Russia does have red lines, and currently they were our borders'. Red lines crossed, oh dear. So then came the Istanbul peace talks, a fairly reasonable settlement and prospects for peace after only a couple of weeks. But then Boris went to Kiev, promised Zelensky wads of cash if they fought Russia to the last Ukrainian, and the rest is history. Russia has retaken a lot of the territory it captured during their show of force, except this time, it looks like they're going to keep it.
But Russia is edging closer to the last two 'fortress cities' in the Donbas. They've captured New York, and they've almost captured.. Stinky. Then it'll be how much appetite for Ukraine Russia has, if it decides to partition it along the Dnipr, and if it decides to press on to Odessa, creating a land bridge to Transinistra and then offering the land back to Romania that they lost. Zelensky is being Zelensky and trying to convince the world that they're winning, and have the initiative, and also screaming for a ceasefire. Strange behaviour when you're winning, but Russia won't agree and allow Ukraine any breathing space to rearm and reconstitute.
...which showed that Ukraine's staff-work sucks, which makes sense given how ad hoc Ukraine's war effort is.
Not ad hoc at all. They had a lot of old-guard Soviet officers. Then from 2014 to 2022 were trained in the best NATO doctrine. Then TSHTF, and a succession of UAF commanders pointing out that the NATO combined arms doctrine wasn't really working, because Russia was cheating and not entirely following the old Soviet manuals. But there are rumors that Surovkin might be coming back to lead Russia's Southern offensive. Ukraine may have done something sensible by removing Sirsky and replacing him with Drapatyi. So an old Soviet-style commander who demanded the UAF hold territory at any cost, despite that cost being horrific. Those may have been Zelensky's orders though, but Drapaty is apparently more a believer in elastic defence, which Ukraine really needs, but it may be too little, too late given Ukraine is rapidly running out of manpower.
The only areas that I can think of that Russia are still around technological parity with NATO would be submarines and drone warfare (once they get over their reliance on Starlink).
You keep saying that as if you believe it's true. Why would Russia be reliant on Starlink when it's a US system and fundamentally insecure? But an area where Russia has exceeded NATO is with missiles and drones. And perhaps better propaganda, which in the West means expecting people to believe in unbelievable things, eg-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8mk59l5jzo
The attack - which officials said had killed eight people - comes after Zelensky met US President Donald Trump in Washington DC this week to urge the US to grant Ukraine a licence to produce Patriot interceptor missiles.
Moar money! Moar Weapons! So far, so Zelensky. But if it bleeds, it ledes..
Their other children - Zakhar, Dominika, Viorika, Federica, and a grandson Artem - are also still missing after Russia launched more than 70 missiles and over 280 drones overnight.
Tragic, but also tragic that these deaths are ruthlessly exploited to push a narrative that Russia deliberately targets civilians. If that were true, then 8 deaths for 350 missiles and drones is remarkably low, especially when the US & Israel kill far more civilians with their strikes.
and I get the idea that Russia is still fielding mostly old EW kit, which is still good, but less effective than modern software defined radio based kit.
Yep, those orcs with shovels and recycled washing machines. But there's been videos from Russia showing how troops operate drones (they don't use Starlink) and how they do use Starlink, ie watching pron or YT. And do you really believe Russia can't make software-defined radios when they can make mobile phones, and it's a genie that's been out of the bottle for over 3 decades now. Plus if they can't make their own chips, they can just buy systems from China.
But reality will be on the ground in captured kit and ELINT. But Russia has been rapidly innovating, adapting and churning out new stuff..
They also started the war with lots of specialist capabilities like military engineering and mine warfare, which I suspect have taken a lot of damage, and will be hard to reconstitute afterwards.
Another way of looking at that is they have a lot of veterans and experience fighting the best that Ukraine and NATO can throw at them. Which has shown up in changes Russia has been making, eg embedding missile & drone units with infantry to shorten the kill chain. Or giving field officers more autonomy. Or embedding spetsnaz and other special forces with regular infantry to upskill those. Or shifting from attempts at mechanised assaults to their DRGs.. Small groups of infiltrators sneaking into Ukrainian positions, often one or two at a time to set up OPPs and collect intelligence ahead of assaults. They're not the Cold War Russia, or a NATO force that became complacent after only fighting insurgents for years.
That's just the Milley 3-day war meme, or the usual 'full scale military invasion' thing. So If you believe that, you believe that Russia seriously intended to capture and hold Kiev, a city of around 3m with a force of <50,000 vs Ukraine's 600k UAF, police and militias. Russians might be crazy, but they're not that crazy.
The 3-day war meme, as far as I remember, comes from an article posted by one of the Russian papers - which got auto-published after 3 days and started with something like, "now the Kiev regime has fallen and the operation is over...' So the assumption was that it was a pre-written piece.
But it turns out that Russia are that crazy. They invaded Ukraine with a tiny amount of troops on a massively wide front, with no concentration of force or unity of command. 200k is an estimate from the military sources I was reading at the beginning of the war (mainly Michael Kofman and Rob Lee) - based on their counting of about 120 battalion tactical groups plus some Rosvgardia (interior ministry paramilitary troops). It may actually be much less, given that the Russian infantry were under-strength, and the BTGs seem to have gone into combat all mounted in a lot of cases early in the war, and not dismounted and deployed when attacked. So it's possible they went in with lower numbers.
This still might not make them stupid, as the Ukraine number of 600k you give is after mobilisation - if this really was supposed to be a short operation, then they'd expect to face mostly the much smaller number of regulars. The only big city that fell at the start was Kherson, so the operation may have just been to fix-in-place the enemy while Kyiv was attacked from the raid on Hostomel airport. That and some small groups of troops in Kyiv kill the government, nobody fights for the "evil Nazi regime" - Russia imposes someone more friendly and leaves.
That's the only scenario that makes logical sense to me, i.e. Russian intelligence (or Putin's unique strategic genius) said Ukraine was mostly divided and wouldn't fight, so decapitate the government. But nonetheless they did that massive invasion, over multiple different fronts, and lost thousands of troops and tonnes of equipment launching multiple armoured thrusts to surround Kyiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Kherson, Odesa, Lymon etc. Which apparently surprised the Ukrainians - most of who's forces were deployed around Donetsk and Luhansk - where the Russians didn't launch their major attack (as Ukraine expected) - which I guess is the other reason the Russians did it that way. They attacked where most of Ukraine's army wasn't - but the plan was still stupid, as if the Hostomel raid failed they were now in tiny groups deep within enemy territory - and so far apart they were unable to mutually support each other.
You really need to get over your best Russian propaganda talking points. Things are much more complex than you seem to allow. Ukraine's army is not "NATO trained", or it would operate much differently. US, UK and Canadian training in the years between 2014-2022 was mostly about training troops. As has been UK training (60,000 so far) of troops here. There's been some higher training of units in France and Germany - and some Ukrainian formations went through NATO training exercises before the war started. But the Ukrainians aren't NATO, or anywhere close. Although NATO would struggle against them now, because they've got so much hands-on drone experience, that nobody else but Russia and to a lesser extent Azerbaijan and Israel have. It's pretty clear that Ukraine hasn't been able to scale up its army to its new size, by producing enough staff officers - they're still struggling to bring in a corps system after 4 years of war - and that's 3 years after their big offensive failed, partly because they weren't able to coordinate large numbers of troops in single operations.
Russia has the higher formation headquarters, and staff officers - but hasn't been able to come up with a tactical doctrine that would allow them to operate in large numbers without getting droned to buggery. So, rather like WWI, breaking through the front line just results in the line retreating a few hundred yards, and then reforming. After 2022, tactical and operational mobility only seems possible on bits of the front that are virtually undefended (like when Ukraine attacked into Kursk). This could be the new normal - but I rather suspect that as anti-drone defences will get rapidly better, and it will become possible to achieve mass at the front line again, without getting slaughtered. All the tech already exists, we now have anti-drone drones and we just need more anti-drone canon and/or lasers. My money's on the guns personally...
The 3-day war meme, as far as I remember, comes from an article posted by one of the Russian papers - which got auto-published after 3 days and started with something like, "now the Kiev regime has fallen and the operation is over...' So the assumption was that it was a pre-written piece
Pre-written pieces, you say? Actual source here. Admittedly not the most reliable-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Clear enough for you? Also a tad embarrassing for Milley, hence the desire to erase that memory and attribute the claim to Russia..
...given that the Russian infantry were under-strength, and the BTGs seem to have gone into combat all mounted in a lot of cases early in the war, and not dismounted and deployed when attacked. So it's possible they went in with lower numbers.
Yep. Not exactly what you'd expect from any 'full-scale military invasion'. More what you might expect, if they weren't really expecting to fight and there was a pause while the Istanbul peace talks progressed.
This still might not make them stupid, as the Ukraine number of 600k you give is after mobilisation - if this really was supposed to be a short operation, then they'd expect to face mostly the much smaller number of regulars. The only big city that fell at the start was Kherson, so the operation may have just been to fix-in-place the enemy while Kyiv was attacked from the raid on Hostomel airport. That and some small groups of troops in Kyiv kill the government, nobody fights for the "evil Nazi regime" - Russia imposes someone more friendly and leaves.
Ah, the retconning. So one of the first acts of the Kiev regime was Decree No. 303 on 17 March 2014, mobilising troops to deal with the civil war, which a surprising number of useful idiots believe didn't happen. Despite all the evidence, ie Donetsk International Airport didn't collapse on its own. The Odessa Trade Union building had video of people throwing petrol bombs and shooting that that building etc etc. Vice had some great videos documenting that, but most seems to have been memory holed now. But then as the situation deteriorated-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization_in_Ukraine
As part of the six waves of mobilization that took place in 2014–2015, 210 thousand people were called up for military service, every sixth of them was registered as a volunteer.
Whether they want to 'volunteer', or not. Then on 24 February 2022, Decree No. 64/2022 was introduced by Zelensky declaring a general mobilisation, martial law and making himself President for life. Well, he didn't exactly put that in the decree, it's just had that effect. His term expired years ago, and democracy is overrated anyway. But then you drift further into propaganda/conspiracy theories with Antonov Airport-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport
In the time leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) obtained detailed information about Russian attack plans. CIA director William J. Burns travelled to Ukraine in January 2022, and informed the Ukrainian leadership that Russia intended to capture Antonov Airport for an airbridge, which would allow Russian forces to quickly move into Kyiv to "decapitate the government"
So Ukraine knew the Russians were (probably) coming, and could prepare. So the cunning plan was basically to repeat what the Soviets did with their Afghanistan invasion. Land troops at Kabul, seize it, reinforce it and call it good..
As a result, the airport only held a small garrison of 200–300 National Guard troops belonging to the 4th Rapid Reaction Brigade, as the remainder had been moved to the frontline in eastern Ukraine.
All eyes were supposed to have been on Russian troop buildups, not the Ukrainian mobilisations and buildups around the eastern frontline, where Ukraine was planning to re-occupy the Rhine.. I mean DPR, LPR and Donbas. But given Ukraine knew the invasion was imminent, it had time to prepare. Then the meme goes that helicopters could run the gauntlet of Ukraine's air defences and air force, land more troops at the airport. Then lightly armed and supplied paratroops could fight 10km through a densely populated city, across some bridges and then besiege Zelensky in his Presidential Palace.
Unlike Afghanistan, there's no evidence that Russia had assault troops loaded into multiple large transport aircraft, along with light vehicles to do a Kabul and seize and hold Kiev's government district. There may have been a plan to link up the road convoys pushing south into the city with the airport.. But those halted for some reason, right as the Istanbul peace talks were happening. Then Boris, then no peace, only fighting to the last Ukrainian.
So all the evidence points to a show of force that almost worked, not some bullshit 'unprovoked full-scale military invasion', because it very obviously wasn't. And Russia hasn't announced any general mobilisation, yet, but that would need an upgrade from an SMO, which nobody really wants.
Which apparently surprised the Ukrainians - most of who's forces were deployed around Donetsk and Luhansk - where the Russians didn't launch their major attack (as Ukraine expected) - which I guess is the other reason the Russians did it that way.
Again a show of force intended to draw Ukraine's forces away from Donetsk & Luhansk. Plus it'd be rather silly to try a frontal attack where Ukraine had massed their forces ready for their own invasion. Now of course it's different.
Pt.2 as it got a bit long..
You really need to get over your best Russian propaganda talking points. Things are much more complex than you seem to allow. Ukraine's army is not "NATO trained", or it would operate much differently. US, UK and Canadian training in the years between 2014-2022 was mostly about training troops.
Et tu, Brute? You really need to try looking at things objectively, and asking if what you are repeatedly told by Ukraine, the EU and NATO in general is at all plausible. But that can be a bit of an uphill battle, eg-
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/merkel-admitted-that-the-minsk-agreements-were-a-ruse-to-rearm-ukrainian-armed-forces/
An official misinformation site, giving one interpretation.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/22/ffci-d22.html
According to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Minsk agreement served to buy time to rearm Ukraine. “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”
One site uses interpretations, the other uses quotes from Merkel to a German newspaper. Which do you think might be true? Of course 'buy time' and 'become stronger' could also be open to interpretation, but like you say, Ukraine used the time to send troops and officers off to get NATO-trained. Then there were all the weapons. Trump boasted that Biden sent blankets, whereas he during his first term sent missiles. But this also explains why peace won't be easy. The US instigated this conflict with Nuland and Pyatt happily talking about who was going to be Ukraine's new President and government, and how they'd fs'ck the EU. Which of course they've done, and as the late, unlamented Graham infamously said, without many (official) US casualties. But also why Russia isn't going to trust the US, EU or NATO as any kind of honest broker or neutral mediator. Russia isn't going to allow any Minsk-style 'ceasefire' and allow Ukraine breathing room to rebuild again.
...and that's 3 years after their big offensive failed, partly because they weren't able to coordinate large numbers of troops in single operations.
That's one way of looking at it. The other is lousy propaganda. The glorious Spring/Summer counter offensive that would have allowed selfies of triumphant NATO & EU leaders on Crimea's beaches was advertised further in advance than Doomsday. So gave Surovikin plenty of time to create layered defences and go 'Come at me bro!'. Which of course Ukraine did, and make it as far as Robotyne. Plus the disagreements between Zaluzhny, Sirsky and Zelensky. Zelensky wanted his PR victory, Zaluzhny urged caution and wanted more time to prepare, Sirksky was a yes-man and decided to split Ukraine's forces just for good measure. But also why Russia probably hasn't tried decapitation strikes. Why would they, when Zelensky is being so helpful? So Ukraine sacrificed an awful lot of blood and treasure on that failed offensive. Then for some bizarre reason decided to invade Russia. History shows that that is rarely a good idea, and Kursk wasted even more men and materiel for a very brief bit of positive PR. Then the reality set in.
Russia has the higher formation headquarters, and staff officers - but hasn't been able to come up with a tactical doctrine that would allow them to operate in large numbers without getting droned to buggery. So, rather like WWI, breaking through the front line just results in the line retreating a few hundred yards, and then reforming. After 2022, tactical and operational mobility only seems possible on bits of the front that are virtually undefended (like when Ukraine attacked into Kursk). This could be the new normal.
It's not the new normal, it's very much the old normal. Repeating the Charge of the Light Brigade and throwing yourself headlong into the Surovikin line isn't exactly smart. Neither was Kursk. It did briefly capture some potato fields, but at an enormous cost. It did draw some Russian forces away from other parts of the contact line, but only briefly. Plus understanding Russia's Constitution. It can't deploy conscripts or paramilitary formations outside Russia, unless war has ben declared. If Russia's invaded, well, then it can throw everything at it. Including inviting DPRK forces to come get blooded and experience.
And you haven't been keeping up with the reality on the ground at all. Russia has adapted. Their field officers have more autonomy, and this has always been kinda true, ie Soviet/Russian officers being expected to lead from the front. People get excited about senior officers being killed, but then Russia's staff officers are expected to lead from the field. And you don't seem to have noticed how Russia is using their DRG infiltrators to probe, develop and exploit weak spots, turning those into repeated cauldrons. Sirsky really helped Russia with those. Russia would leave an opening, because fully enveloped troops fight harder. They probably didn't expect Sirsky to keep filling the cauldrons with fresh meat, but then exploiting an opponent's mistakes is one of the basic lessons of warfare.
The have form for prepared stories that never went to plan. Early 90.s
Can’t remember if it was BBC or ITV that interrupted regular broadcast with a report on Russian military in Chechnya.
Went something like this…
We have just received a report from TAS that Russian troops have taken control of the Chechen capital. The reporter saying this was struggling to contain a laugh.
“and now over to our man in the capital” as he fails to contain his laughter….
The scene in the capital wasif Russian troops captured in town square on their knees and surrounded by Chechens firing rifles up into the air.
The have form for prepared stories that never went to plan. Early 90.sCan’t remember if it was BBC or ITV that interrupted regular broadcast with a report on Russian military in Chechnya.
That was the Bbc. It's also sadly normal with propaganda masquerading as news. The Bbc is the UK state broadcaster, it's Charter and funding renewal season, so the Bbc plays nicely with the government. Fox is filling the same role in the US because Trump recruited a lot of people from there (Hegseth, from pundit to Secretary of War). Or Durov. France arrested him because they, and the EU really don't like encryption and are pushing very hard to impose a mass surveillance state. The EU's also censored pretty much every Russian news service because EU citizens can't be allowed to access unofficial misinformation. There's also suggestions that search engines should promote the MSM, because the public is increasingly turning away from the old guard. Russia's doing much the same and wants access to Russian Telegram users.
So there's a bit of a battle for our hearts and minds, which has been the case pretty much ever since countries created postal services and 'black rooms' where letters could be intercepted. Sometimes for good reason, because very bad people do very bad things via our communications networks, and LEAs need a way to prevent this. But it's a very fine line between privacy and security. Plus our education system really doesn't seem to be creating people who can tell the difference between objective truths and propaganda, or other deliberate misinformation.
Case in point this week where Zelensky was interviewed by Fox News. He claimed Russia had 700k dead and 1.6m casualties. But he also claimed that Ukraine had only lost 50k. The interviewer didn't question these claims, but should have had plenty of reasons to. So back in February, Zelensky claimed 55k KIA, so 5k have become undead in only a few months. But 50k is unbelievable given the intensity of the fighting, and the way Ukraine is running their busification program to recruit more troops. If they've only lost 50k, they don't need to, and if the 700k Russian figure is also true, well, they're winning. Right?
Unless Zelensky is just plucking numbers out of the air. In which case, there's a bit of a credibility problem. Or he's been told the 50k figure by his staff, and believed them. Also a credibility problem, but more dangerous because Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief would have been grossly misinformed and can't make effective decisions. Same thing may have happened with US v Iran. Trump's advisors may have told him Iran would be a pushover, and a quick spot of decapitation and the Iranian public would rise up, take charge and start building statues to Trump, their saviour. But that hasn't exactly gone to plan, and the US is now facing another forever war that further damages America's credibility. Whoever told Trump that Iran would be easy might want to be looking for alternative employment given Trump's thin skin and massive ego.
"Plus our education system really doesn't seem to be creating people who can tell the difference between objective truths and propaganda, or other deliberate misinformation.". Thats rich coming from you the biggest spreader of misinformation on the Register
Its sad to see that you are still allowed to post here with your Kreml shitposts
We have just received a report from TAS that Russian troops have taken control of the Chechen capital. The reporter saying this was struggling to contain a laugh.
Could have been Michael Buerk on the BBC? He always had this look like he was trying to contain a smirk, and to this day he reliably sounds on the radio like he really, really enjoys his job despite it sometimes involving quite depressing subjects. I didn't question it at the time because he was the news, but it's mildly bizarre looking back on some of his news summaries now.
More seriously, what you describe sounds like Russia's assault on Grozny beginning Dec 31st 1994. They got their asses handed to them initially, and to most people's surprise, so there could have been a premature announcement of success, but then ground on for 6 weeks or so and announced control of the capital but then also continued to suffer guerilla attacks and some large hostage takings in and near the capital afterwards. (Then eventually agreed peace only to invade again 3 years later. Same script as Ukraine. At least now since the Iran attacks they can say the US plays the same way).
I can't find (never mind remember) the exact report you mention though.
Ukraine will have captured Russian comms kit, so they, and their allies will have a good idea what they are actually using.
This part incidentally, the standard is the R-187 radio, which is by all accounts good kit and very modern. Not always in the best supply but that's to be expected in wartime. The problem is outside operational radio ranges when Russian units on say, adjacent parts of front-line, want to communicate with each other they find it very hard because of the top-down command structure. This is where the unofficial use of Telegram and other social media comes into play operationally.
Putin tends to get a bit edgy, when people flip him off.
Not just Putin-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Monaco_bombing#
But must be interesting being Durov. EU wants him to give them access to Telegram, or block all the things. Now Russia's turned anti-Telegram as well. Meanwhile, it isn't just Russia and Ukraine using and abusing useful idiots to do illegal things.
Oh look, another whataboutism from kremls favorite poster
What about say, a woman that may or may not have been recruited via Telegram to deliver a package to a Moscow restaurant over the weekend? She didn't suffer quite the same fate as the Monaco terrorist, but guessing a spotter saw she was denied entry and detonated the bomb anyway.
Whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.. Even if that includes terrorism? Which is just a tad illegal in the UK.
