Our attack has halted, and the war feels unwinnable. The data streams back in fragments and fear. Some say, half of the regiment has disappeared. Orders to kill anyone seen have echoed through whispered phone calls. A dispatch from a weary soldier ends with a vow to go home, to escape the nightmare of the front. The name of a leader, Vladimir Putin, surfaces in frustration: a lone voice claiming that Kiev cannot be seized under the present realities.
Across the transcripts, a chorus emerges from Russia’s ranks—families, partners, and friends listening for news. These recordings originate from Russian soldiers relocated to the area near Bucha, on the outskirts of Kyiv, weeks after the invasion began. Like many others, their voices were captured, translated, and authenticated for publication as part of a broader investigation. Months of careful work consumed this material and, in collaboration with reputable outlets, it was released to illuminate the human impact behind official narratives. The conversations reveal mounting anger and disillusionment over decisions made by the highest levels of government and military command, alongside a stark accounting of the violence affecting civilians.
The publication notes that the identities of the callers are protected by using only first names, a measure meant to shield soldiers from potential punishment by authorities for publicly voiced dissent. Yet the content of these messages stands as a candid record of what soldiers privately believed and feared. The New York Times, in its reporting, explains this balance between anonymity and accountability, underscoring how sensitive remarks can carry personal risk for the speakers.
“These statements reflect a damaged morale”
Morale among the occupying forces deteriorated quickly. Many soldiers reported a lack of equipment and confusion about their mission. One participant, Serguei, told his mother that he had previously criticized the war as the government’s gravest mistake. Nikita described feeling treated like a child by those in command, and Aleksei vented about being left uninformed and unsure about the purpose of their orders. The recurring accusation was that no clear briefings had been provided and the soldiers were left to interpret fragmented instructions. The sentiment from several voices was that key information had been withheld, fuelling suspicion and frustration among troops on the ground.
Conversations also showcased a clash between official state narratives and on-the-ground reality. In a dialogue with a partner, a soldier named Alexander admitted that Kyiv could not be seized at that moment and that the focus was likely on smaller targets. Another soldier, Sergei, expressed concern that television coverage portrayed a calm, controlled operation while the true situation resembled something far more chaotic and costly. These moments underscore the tension between what was shown publicly and what was known privately by those who carried out orders.
War crimes
The human cost of the conflict is laid bare in the discussions about casualties and the suffering of civilians. The reports challenge the idea that mass violence was simply a distant, impersonal campaign and instead document personal decisions made under duress that led to tragic outcomes. Investigators note that the volume of footage and testimony supports accusations of war crimes, including the manipulation of civilian safety and the mistreatment of noncombatants. Instances described in the conversations include orders to neutralize perceived threats and the moral conflicts that arise when soldiers are confronted with the consequences of their actions. One account details a commander ordering the killing of three men who had sought shelter near a warehouse, with the soldiers describing how they assessed risk, weighed consequences, and ultimately acted under pressure.
In one exchange, a soldier explains the grim calculus used in the field: after stripping and inspecting the captives, the decision was made to shoot because letting them live could reveal a position. The tension between survival concerns and moral restraint is evident, and the soldier acknowledges the burden of becoming complicit in murder. When pressed about why captives were not taken, the reply is stark and uncompromising: there was not enough food to feed them, so they could not be spared. These candid admissions highlight the brutal choices faced by soldiers in conflict zones and the ways in which operational demands can eclipse humanitarian considerations.
A recurrent theme in the conversations is the fear that civilians would reveal military positions. Soldiers describe orders to target any person in sight, a directive framed as a necessity to protect sensitive locations. The grim reality is articulated by voices that confess the harsh certainty that such directives could make them accomplices in murder. The transcripts show individuals wrestling with the moral weight of their duties and the emotional cost of bearing witness to those acts, including the struggle to maintain humanity in the face of orders that demand violence against civilians.
There is also mention of looting and the broader pattern of damage to property as occupying forces moved through towns and villages. The Times confirmed that several individuals detained in the course of those operations conducted shipments back to Russia in the days following searches, a detail that adds to the questions surrounding the conduct of troops and the broader economic impact of the conflict. The material captured in these conversations provides a nuanced picture of how war affects people, not only in terms of lives lost but also through the disruption of homes, communities, and livelihoods. It preserves the testimony of those who witnessed and participated in events, inviting a sober examination of responsibility and accountability in war. The overall account underscores the gravity of civilian harm and the enduring question of how such harm might be addressed in the aftermath of conflict.