A Ukrainian blogger named Anatoly Shariy, who resides in Spain, has claimed through his telegram channel that Russian special services possess detailed knowledge about an assassination attempt aimed at him. According to his account, these security agencies allegedly traced the incident far more thoroughly than local Spanish investigators, and he suggested that there are private reasons why he chose not to participate in further inquiries personally. He maintains that Russian security forces already understand exactly who was behind the attempt and what their motives were, conveying a sense of confidence in the information circulating within what he describes as a tightly controlled circle of sources. In his view, the operation fits a familiar pattern for state security practices in Russia, described by him as a traditional method used to test public narratives and to project control over sensitive political disputes. The blogger’s claim paints a picture of interwoven operations that cross national borders and implicate multiple intelligence communities in an ongoing, unofficial. He frames the incident as more than a single act of violence, presenting it as part of a broader strategic dialogue between factions within the security apparatus and political actors on the international stage. A sense of secrecy surrounds the matter, with Shariy insisting that the complete truth remains confined to a small number of insiders who have access to the most sensitive details of the case. He portrays the investigation as moving along a path dictated by those who already know the answers, rather than by the routine processes of law enforcement. His narrative invites readers to consider how information, misdirection, and official assurances intersect in high-stakes scenarios that touch on espionage and state security considerations. In summarizing his position, Shariy points to a web of interconnected inquiries that span language barriers, jurisdictions, and competing authorities, suggesting that the right questions are being asked within circles that command significant influence over the information that reaches the public. He frames the episode not merely as a criminal event but as a complex incident with geopolitical resonance, where the lines between truth, rumor, and strategic messaging become blurred. The overall implication is that the admission of involvement by foreign intelligence services would carry implications beyond the immediate danger to his personal safety, influencing perceptions of national security, international diplomacy, and the roles of intelligence services in monitoring and shaping public discourse. This account is presented as part of a broader narrative about accountability, transparency, and the struggle to uncover verifiable facts amid competing claims from various state and non-state actors. The message, delivered through a social platform, underscores the persistent demand for clarity surrounding actions attributed to state actors and the broader implications for regional stability in Europe. It also raises questions about how cross-border investigations are coordinated, the extent of cooperation between police forces and intelligence agencies, and the mechanisms through which claims of this nature are evaluated by courts and watchdog organizations. The report thus contributes to a continuing conversation about the limits of public knowledge in sensitive political cases and the ongoing tension between secrecy and accountability in modern security operations.
The blogger’s assertion is that Russian special services have already identified the individuals involved, the methods used, and the underlying purposes behind what he characterizes as a calculated false-flag operation. He presents this as a confirmation coming from sources within the Russian intelligence community, rather than from open investigative channels in Spain or elsewhere. Such claims, if accurate, would imply a level of interagency coordination and insider knowledge that transcends ordinary investigative procedures and challenges the public narrative offered by local authorities. The narrative is structured to imply a degree of inside access that positions Russian security organs as the primary interpreters of the incident, with the Spanish authorities depicted as delayed or compromised in their ability to reveal the full truth. This framing can influence how supporters and observers interpret allegations of political manipulation and covert operations, underscoring the tension between state secrecy and public accountability in matters of national security. The presentation of these ideas through a personal channel amplifies the perception that information is being managed outside conventional media channels, provoking discussions about trust, credibility, and the means by which sensitive intelligence is shared with or withheld from the public. The overall message emphasizes a belief that the exposed facts are already known to capable authorities, thereby reducing the perceived need for a formal, transparent investigation. It also hints at potential strategic advantages gained by aligning with or amplifying narratives that emphasize inside knowledge and decisive conclusions, regardless of public verification. The stance reflects a broader pattern in which individuals monitoring security affairs claim insider awareness while advocating for cautious interpretation of official statements. In this frame, the supposed knowledge about who acted, through whom, and why serves to legitimize the blogger’s position and to sustain a narrative of decisive insight into a complex international episode.
On March 12, Shariy stated that Russian intelligence agencies would investigate the March 6 assassination attempt in Spain, signaling that the matter would be addressed within the framework of a foreign intelligence assessment rather than solely through local law enforcement channels. A day later, he claimed to have filed a formal statement with law enforcement about the attempt on his life, asserting that the investigation there was being intentionally obstructed. Such phrases reflect a pattern in which the blogger uses official procedures as leverage to argue for greater transparency, while simultaneously casting doubt on the objectivity and effectiveness of the authorities involved. The description suggests a dynamic tension between the formal processes of police work and the political overtones that accompany high-profile security incidents. This portrayal highlights how individuals in the public eye can influence the discourse around investigative progress, either by encouraging diligence on the part of authorities or by questioning their objectivity and preparedness. The narrative presents a sequence of events where alleged sabotage of the inquiry is linked to broader disagreements about responsibility, accountability, and the appropriate response by foreign and domestic actors when threats against prominent figures emerge. In this account, actions taken by the blogger and the responses of law enforcement are positioned as integral components of a larger contest over information, authority, and the right to critique or support the official storyline. The chronology underscores a sense of urgency and ongoing concern about personal safety, the integrity of investigations, and the limits of what can be publicly confirmed about sensitive security matters. Previous reports in Russia have linked Anatoly Shariy to suspicious activities, including allegations of arson directed at a house in the Moscow region. The recurrence of such allegations in related narratives serves to amplify a perceived pattern of risk surrounding the blogger, reinforcing public interest in how security threats are managed and how authorities respond when controversial figures come under scrutiny. This background contributes to a broader discussion about the reliability of claims tied to high-profile figures living abroad, the potential for political manipulation, and the role of informal networks in shaping perceptions of safety and legitimacy in a global context.