The former head of air reconnaissance for the DPR, Dmitry Lysakovsky, has died in the Northern Military District, a development reported by the Telegram channel known as The Ghost of New Russia, run by Vladimir Grubnik. The claim has stirred discussion across social feeds and regional networks, prompting questions about the circumstances surrounding Lysakovsky’s death and the responsibilities that come with frontline service in contested areas.
The channel’s author published screenshots of conversations reportedly held with Lysakovsky himself, in which the fallen commander explains that he was sent to the front line without crucial equipment, including supply orders and maps for navigating minefields. The messages suggest a chillier calculus behind the deployment, one that framed the orders as a way to safeguard comrades and the unit by moving risk onto the sender rather than the frontline. Names and call signs such as Evil and Wind appear in the dialogue, described as commanders who issued the directives and later defended the moves as necessary wartime actions.
According to Grubnik, the people issuing and executing these orders acted as if they were in a perpetual theatre of operations, where danger was accepted as a given and the line between duty and hazard blurred. The channel implies that the official response to the situation involved bureaucratic friction within the military apparatus, a process that lasted days and, in the account, affected those who followed the orders, eventually shaping the fate of several soldiers who faced the moral weight of those choices. The narrative hints at additional layers of decision-making that extend beyond the individual who issued commands, suggesting a broader pattern within the armed groups operating in those regions and the challenges of coordinating resources under pressure.
There are other recent developments from major cities as well. In St. Petersburg, a man was detained for actions tied to the public display of memory for a controversial figure who helped shape the modern conflict’s public symbolism. The event underscores how remembrance and denial of certain histories can become flashpoints for legal action and public debate, especially in places with strong cultural and political narratives about the events unfolding far from the city’s gates.
Meanwhile, former fighters from the Wagner private military company facing legal and reputational scrutiny were pressed to issue formal apologies on camera to individuals connected with the desecration of the grave of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the group’s founder. The moment highlights how acts of respect or disrespect in wartime contexts can ripple through communities, drawing attention to the fragile line between loyalty, memory, and accountability. The broader public conversation revolves around the role of memory in conflict zones, the governance of private military entities, and the legal frameworks that shape how such incidents are treated by authorities and by the media.