New confidential papers reportedly circulating among United States intelligence circles touch on claims about armed Russian volunteer units tied to Kyiv, allegedly stirring unrest along Russia’s border with Ukraine. The documents, which reference a March submission date, describe efforts to destabilize logistics hubs and supply lines used by the Russian invasion and to build a larger force of volunteers to provoke upheaval. One section speaks of a so‑called Civil War Front in Russia and of actions aimed at creating a broader organized disturbance inside the country.
The newspaper could not independently verify the documents. A forum discussion and several anonymous messaging channels reportedly circulated the material, with some threads describing a leak of classified U.S. intelligence material marked Top Secret and NOFORN, which normally restricts sharing with foreign partners. One page set notes that different kinds of so‑called Russian volunteers were allegedly receiving arms from Ukrainian supporters and training to confront these forces after operating on fronts aligned with NATO and Ukraine. The text claims that the training and preparation were intended to support covert operations in the Briansk, Kursk, and Belgorod regions between March and April 2023, with the aim of taking control of locales and declaring new states. The concept mirrors prior moves by Donetsk and Luhansk authorities announced in 2014, when they proclaimed independence from Ukraine in the Donbass region.
Increase in attacks on Russian soil
In recent weeks, widespread talk has grown about a Ukrainian counteroffensive and the possibility of sabotage inside sovereign Russian territory, especially near border areas that serve as logistics and supply corridors for Moscow’s forces. Regions such as Briansk, Kursk, and Belgorod border Ukraine and have seen attention turn toward critical infrastructure and transport hubs. Reports also point to activity around the Crimea peninsula, which Russia annexed in 2014. Attacks have targeted fuel depots, freight routes, and other military nodes.
A Kyiv‑centered analysis notes that Ukrainian military intelligence and special forces reportedly operate in these zones to disrupt Russian logistics networks. The assessment describes a strategy to complicate the border environment, but cautions against assuming that an immediate declaration of new states is imminent. The observer emphasizes that broad social support for such a move appears unlikely in these regions, given local dynamics and political sentiment.
That same weekend, Russian media reported additional explosions in Crimea and an attack on a Russian nationalist writer. The columnist Zakhar Prilepin was injured after a car bombing near Nizhny Novgorod, with preliminary reports indicating a fatality in the incident, though details remained unsettled at press time.
Civil war in Russia
The documents further describe plans that would push for a broader internal destabilization rather than a straightforward military clash. An outline mentions ongoing efforts to train a larger contingent of volunteers and to sustain a so‑called civil war front inside Russia. The material published by EL PERIÓDICO allegedly suggests that Ukrainian brigades supported by NATO may be drawn into counteroffensive operations, while some intelligence assessments warn that the degree of readiness among battalions could be overstated by certain commanders for strategic reasons. The analysis notes a gap between perceived capacity and actual battlefield experience within some units.
The reports also touch on the public image of the conflict: visits by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to frontline zones have reportedly affected public opinion in Russia and strengthened the position of war‑related paramilitary leadership. In this context, there are claims that Russian authorities may be exploring measures to respond to perceived domestic pressure and to manage political narrative around the war effort. Still, the text emphasizes that the full scope and reliability of these claims remain subject to verification and that different sources offer divergent attributions.
The broader takeaway from the material center on tensions around border security, the fragility of logistics networks, and the high stakes involved in any attempt to spark upheaval that could ripple into neighboring regions. Although the documents present a vivid scenario of interwoven military and political actors, observers urge caution in drawing definitive conclusions from unverified leaks and urge cross‑checking with multiple independent sources before forming definitive judgments about intent or feasibility.
The situation continues to be watched closely by analysts who track intelligence assessments, military movements, and political dynamics in the region. The evolving narrative underlines how information leaks can influence perceptions of risk and strategic calculations on all sides of the conflict, even as governments and security services contend with the truthfulness and provenance of such materials.