Ukrainian agent caught in Russia – FSB (VIDEO)
In a statement on Monday, the agency said the man, a Moldovan national residing in Russia, had maintained contact with a representative of Ukraine's Defense Intelligence since 2024 via Telegram. Acting on his handler's instructions, he allegedly gathered and relayed information about a Russian Armed Forces unit and a military-industrial facility in the region.
According to the FSB, in return for his cooperation, the suspect was promised assistance in fleeing to France, after which he planned to travel to Ukraine and join one of its armed formations to fight against Russia.
The FSB's investigative department in Ryazan Region has opened a criminal case for 'state treason in the form of espionage'. A court has ordered that the suspect be held in custody.
The agency warned that Ukrainian intelligence actively recruits through the internet, social media, and messenger apps such as Telegram and WhatsApp to involve Russian citizens in sabotage and acts of terrorism. It added that anyone assisting the Kiev regime will be prosecuted.
The FSB regularly reports on foiled terrorist plots and sabotage attempts on behalf of Kiev. Last week, a Russian national suspected of planning a bomb attack and attempting to flee to Ukraine was killed in a shootout with law enforcement in Western Siberia. A week earlier, the agency thwarted a Ukrainian plot to blow up a railway bridge in Saratov Region, killing a Russian suspect after he opened fire on officers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky announces date of next Russia-Ukraine talks
The next round of direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine will take place in Türkiye on Wednesday, Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky announced in a video statement on Telegram on Monday. DETAILS TO FOLLOW
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Iran announces nuclear talks with Russia and China
Russia, China, and Iran will hold talks on Tuesday to discuss Tehran's nuclear program, Esmaeil Baghaei, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, has announced. He noted that a separate round of talks with European nations is scheduled for later this week. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Baghaei said that the trilateral talks would also focus on the threats by Britain, France, and Germany to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. In particular, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned of a potential sanctions snapback next month if no meaningful progress is made in limiting Iran's nuclear activities. Baghaei noted that Russia and China remain members of the 2015 nuclear deal and hold significant influence in the UN Security Council. He added that Iran had had 'good consultations' with the two countries regarding the potential sanctions snapback. 'Legally and logically, there is no reason for the return of sanctions lifted under the [nuclear deal],' he stressed. The spokesman also confirmed that Iran would hold a separate meeting at the deputy foreign minister level with Britain, France, and Germany in Istanbul on Friday, adding that Tehran has 'no plans to talk with the US' at this time. One of the key stumbling blocks has been Iran's decision to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was monitoring Tehran's nuclear program. Tehran has accused the IAEA of releasing a biased report, which was allegedly used as a pretense by Israel to launch a 12-day war against Iran. The Israeli attack came after Iran-US nuclear talks ended up at an impasse due to Washington's demand that Tehran fully abandon uranium enrichment. While the US has argued that Iran could use the capacity to create a nuclear bomb, Iran has dismissed any plans of doing so, insisting that it needs enrichment to fuel its civilian energy industry. Both Russia and China maintain that the Iranian nuclear crisis can only be resolved through political and diplomatic means.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
A new nuclear age is coming, but this time it's different
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe. The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore. Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest. But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's. In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational. Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path. Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power. Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation. We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack. This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China. In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world. Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity. A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control. Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil. Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it. The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced. In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance. But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger. We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
