Journalist Dmitry Kolezev says an active-duty Russian general told him Moscow should seek peace now before it can’t replace the men it’s losing in Ukraine. But can you trust an ‘anonymous general’?

On July 6, journalist Dmitry Kolezev published an interview with a man he identified as an active-duty general in the Russian army who has taken part in the war against Ukraine. Kolezev stressed that, to protect his source, he cannot reveal the man’s name, rank, or biographical details, even though he knows them himself. Meduza has summarized the key points of the interview and collected the reactions to it. The central question under debate is whether an anonymous military commander can be trusted.

What the ‘general’ said (in a nutshell)

The front is stagnant. The Donbas can be taken only if Russian manpower outnumbers the enemy’s drones many times over — and achieving that means recruiting at least 55,000 to 60,000 men a month, which is unrealistic right now. The front-line situation report that Putin read from a teleprompter is inflated by roughly a factor of two — designed for Trump, to keep him engaged in negotiations. Putin knows the military is lying to him, but he is glad to be deceived. Why does the air-defense system let Ukrainian strikes through? Incompetence. When the Defense Ministry claims it downed 400 targets, assume there were no fewer than 1,500. Can Russia close the gap with Ukraine in the drone race? In quantity, perhaps — but not in quality, and quality is what matters. How can the blockade of Crimea be broken? For now, there’s no way: the General Staff is fixated on the Donbas, and Crimea is not a priority. What options does the Kremlin have to regain the upper hand? A nuclear strike is a fantasy, but a new mobilization is entirely possible. The chances that Putin will negotiate with Ukraine on terms unfavorable to him are extremely slim. But negotiations are necessary: a new wave of demographic problems is coming, and replacing losses even at the current rate will soon become impossible. There’s another six months to a year left to make decisions. After that, things will only get worse.

How Kolezev’s interview came together

Journalist Alexander Plushev, who invited Dmitry Kolezev to discuss the interview on the YouTube channel The Breakfast Show, noted that, throughout the full-scale war, not a single senior Russian military commander has spoken to the independent press.

In his conversation with Plushev, Kolezev said that although he now lives in Portugal, he has maintained contact with sources in Russia. One of those sources suggested he reach out to the general, who reportedly wanted to share “certain circumstances surrounding one episode of the war.” Kolezev ultimately held off on publishing the piece about that episode but did publish his source’s assessments on a broader range of war-related topics.

Kolezev said he is personally certain of the general’s identity but cannot provide proof to his audience without endangering the man. “There are roughly 1,500 generals in the Russian army. A source can be identified by narrowing the search through specific details, if the FSB [Federal Security Service] or military counterintelligence is doing the looking,” Kolezev said. “I have nothing to offer as proof, because doing so would point to the source. Essentially, you can only trust my reputation and the assessments this person gives.”

Should you believe this ‘general’?

Most of the discussion surrounding the interview has come down to exactly this question. Blogger Michael Naki wrote that he trusts Kolezev but that Kolezev could have been used for a “controlled leak” of information favorable to Russian propaganda. Even so, Naki said he read the interview with interest: “For me, the most important thing was how well Putin understands the real situation at the front, and what escalation options are being considered. What was missing was a sense of what the “general” knows versus what he’s guessing at. Without knowing his area of responsibility, it’s impossible to tell how much of this is analysis and how much is information.”

Other viewers — judging by comments on Kolezev’s YouTube channel — were put off by a quote from the interview referencing Harry Potter. “There is no superweapon, no magic shield in the style of Harry Potter, for anyone,” Kolezev’s source said, explaining why Russian air defenses let Ukrainian drones through. Some users doubted that a Russian general would use such an analogy. On air with Plushev, however, Kolezev said the interview was conducted in writing and that his source introduced the Harry Potter reference himself.

“Everyone is a real person, everyone has some kind of everyday life — children, grandchildren, movies — and it’s hardly always Soviet patriotic cinema. And besides, the reference is on the most basic level: Harry Potter is something about magic. I think that at that level, just about anyone could make such a reference,” the journalist said.

Ivan Filippov, a writer and researcher of Z-propaganda, said the “general’s” language did not strike him as unusual, nor did the source’s insistence on maximum anonymity. Nataliya Gevorkyan, a journalist and coordinator of the “Professiya — Zhurnalist” award, was similarly willing to believe the sourcing. “I’m totally fine with interviews like this — no over-the-top skepticism or suspicion, especially when a journalist you can trust is the one doing it. The general speaks clearly and quite like an intellectual, which throws a lot of people off. I know generals like that, so it doesn’t trip me up. If other anonymous figures come forward after the general (not necessarily from the military, which is quite possible and happens fairly often), that will be interesting. Apparently the time has come,” she wrote on Facebook.

Meduza’s assessment

The text of the interview offers no hints about the position the “general” holds (and, consequently, about his areas of competence and the information he possesses).

No single commander can have deep knowledge simultaneously of conditions on individual sections of the front, of strategy and the theory of victory, and of how air defense is organized, and so on. That, of course, doesn’t stop him from having opinions on all of these things.

The opinion clearly reflects the “general’s” distrust of his superiors — a view shared by many other officers in the Russian army, judging by leaked private correspondence and statements from war correspondents (”voenkory”) with close ties to headquarters who relay commanders’ opinions.

Many in Russia’s army don’t grasp the strategy of their military and political leadership and believe the resources and methods used to wage the war are inadequate.