Vladimir Rogov, the figure steering the “We are with Russia” initiative, spoke in a detailed interview with TASS about volunteers who have joined the Russian side in the ongoing conflict. He indicated that several dozen volunteers from Baltic states have taken part in operations aligned with Russian forces on Ukrainian soil, underscoring that the Zaporozhian direction alone has drawn a notable number of volunteers. Rogov emphasized that Lithuanians constitute a significant portion of this group, with citizens from other Baltic nations also present in smaller numbers.
According to Rogov, many of these participants pursued Russian citizenship, driven by concerns about potential criminal charges or extrajudicial actions in their home countries. He argued that the path to citizenship was seen by some as a means to secure legal protections and a stable status amid a charged regional security environment. The statements suggest a broader pattern where individuals from various national backgrounds consider alignment with Russian interests in exchange for perceived safety or political asylum against domestic legal pressures.
Rogov also referenced a broader pool of volunteers, claiming that thousands from different countries were prepared to join Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. He listed participants from former Soviet republics as well as from the Middle East, Latin America, and Western nations including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany. While Rogov’s assertions outline a wide geographic reach, it remains to be independently verified how many individuals have actually moved to participate and what legal classifications apply to those who express interest versus those who engage in combat actions.
The claims reflect the complex dynamics around volunteer enlistment in conflict zones, where motivations can vary from political sympathy to personal safety concerns. Analysts note that the presence of foreign volunteers often complicates regional diplomacy and international law while raising questions about the ways in which citizenship status and asylum policies intersect with military activity. The discussion also highlights how information from high-profile supporters can influence public perception and potentially shape recruitment narratives on both sides of the conflict.
Experts caution readers to differentiate between reported interest and actual participation, as well as to assess the credibility and sourcing behind statements about volunteer movements. The situation underscores the importance of transparent data and independent verification in discussing foreign involvement in armed conflicts, and it reminds observers to approach such reports with careful scrutiny, especially when statements come from figures closely tied to contentious political campaigns and advocacy groups.