(MOSCOW, RUSSIA) – A prominent Russian State Duma deputy has claimed his Telegram account was hacked after a post appeared on his channel criticising the slow progress of Russia’s war in Ukraine, describing the front as locked in a severe positional stalemate.
The unexpected publication appeared on the Telegram channel of reserve Lieutenant General and State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulyov. The post asserted that the advance of Russian troops had halted and that the front was stuck in the harshest of positional deadlocks. Readers were urged to remove their rose tinted spectacles and stop feeding themselves illusions that a breakthrough was imminent.
The deputy moved quickly to clarify the situation, stating he had been hacked. “The text being discussed on social networks is simply an enemy provocation. Friends, my Telegram account has been stolen. Texts from it are being spread by enemies. We will try to regain access as soon as possible. Thank you everyone. Do not fall for provocations,” Gurulyov stated.
The incident was dissected on the Russian television programme “The Meeting Place,” hosted by Andrey Norkin and Ivan Trushkin, with contributions from military analyst Aleksei Ramm, military expert Andrey Klintsevich, and State Duma deputy Alexey Zhuravlyov.
Norkin opened the debate by posing a direct question: “Can we ourselves liberate these territories by the end of the year? Please show us.”
Klintsevich responded with confidence. “Yes. The Russian armed forces have the strength to fulfil this task.”
Zhuravlyov offered a bluntly pessimistic assessment. “No, it is not achievable. Because of the Sloviansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, or the wall, as I understand it.”
He expanded on his reasoning, arguing that no army in the world could currently achieve the large breakthroughs documented in earlier conflicts. “My personal opinion is that no army in the world, not the American, not the Chinese, can now carry out big breakthroughs as it was before in doctrine. Tank columns, all of that will be burned. That is the twentieth century. We have simply encountered the fact that technically, perhaps, a solution will be found, perhaps some kind of electromagnetic field will be created that will cover tanks and they will go forward again. Until that is created, a drone must be destroyed kinetically, that is, by hitting it. And we see now that the growth of artificial intelligence and the capabilities of swarm technologies are creating a serious problem for both us and the enemy.”
Zhuravlyov, growing more animated, rejected the optimistic framing of the conflict. “Everything you say is absolutely wonderful. But the only question is that we are not moving as you described,” he said, before being asked how Russian forces are actually advancing. “Very slowly. That is the point. If everything was as you say, we would already be standing near Kyiv. That there are no people there. They have enough people there and there are still reserves there. And this busification and everything is there. There is no need to tell these fables that they are sitting there and we have been destroying them. In that case, we should be taking tens of kilometres a day at a minimum. We are not doing this. I say, if the war continues like this, of course we will not take anything by the end of the year. We need to change.”
He then delivered a stark conclusion: “We are not fighting a war. We are conducting a special military operation. And we ought to be fighting a war already. Then we will take it.”
Zhuravlyov proposed escalating the conflict by striking decision making centres, specifying not merely buildings and structures but the individuals inside them. “This entire Nazi elite, all these chiefs and so on, we know where they are. And even if they move, they will run like rats all over Ukraine, and we will find them. Bridges, logistics, all of that.”
When challenged on the feasibility of destroying bridges and the potential for diplomatic escalation with Russia’s remaining partners, Zhuravlyov dismissed the concern. “Today there is a creeping desire to subordinate the West, taking into account also our allies, as you say. We have no allies, with the exception of the DPRK, which is defending our lands with its soldiers. These are real allies. All the rest, they do not want our victory. There is no need for illusions on this.”
Host Andrey Norkin interjected, questioning whether such an approach would not transform Russia into a pariah state akin to Israel acting with overwhelming force in Palestinian territories. “If we do as you propose, and start pounding the centre of Kyiv, which undoubtedly warms someone’s heart, will we not at that moment turn into Israel, which acted in Palestine with these carpet bombing stories? And we looked at that and said, well, we are not like that, we do not do that.”
Zhuravlyov rejected the comparison, insisting he was speaking specifically about decision making centres and not indiscriminate bombing. “We are not talking about bombing residential neighbourhoods. Moreover, we can absolutely warn everyone. Guys, here we come.”
The debate concluded without consensus, as the panel acknowledged that Zhuravlyov’s position, however incendiary, reflected a view held by a significant number of people who believe the Russian dictator’s military campaign requires a far more brutal approach.