Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

False Flags in the South: How Russia Fakes Advances — and Why It Misleads Analysts

The spokesperson for the Southern Defense Forces reports on the tactic of "flag" groups: photos for the cameras instead of actual control of territory. We explain why the enemy needs this and what it means for the front and the international community.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 28, 2025 · 2 min read

False Flags in the South: How Russia Fakes Advances — and Why It Misleads Analysts

What happened

According to LIGA.net, spokesman for the Southern Defense Forces Vladyslav Voloshyn reported an uptick in an enemy tactic — small assault teams infiltrate into the rear, hoist Russian flags and take photo or video recordings to create the illusion of a deep advance. This practice is being recorded not only near Huliaipole but across the entire area of responsibility of the Southern Defense Forces.

"They infiltrate as far as possible into our rear, unfurl their flag to take photo or video recordings, as if Russian troops have advanced far and taken new territory under their control"

— Vladyslav Voloshyn, spokesman for the Southern Defense Forces

Why the Russians want these "flag" photos

The aim is informational rather than a sustainable tactical gain: such footage shows foreign analysts, the OSINT community and their own command a quick "result." According to Voloshyn, it is on the basis of such images that senior officers are held to account by higher leadership — and even report the "capture" of settlements, regardless of the real situation on the ground.

The General Staff of Ukraine has already refuted some claims about the "capture" of Huliaipole; facts on the ground indicate ongoing street fighting and the presence of Ukrainian positions, particularly in the western part of the town.

What this means for the front

Voloshyn explains that such groups usually "do not live long": the enemy enters, makes drone shots, and within a short time loses those forces as a result of Ukrainian units' actions. In other words, this does not produce a real strategic breakthrough, but it creates an informational backdrop that can distort the picture of events for an external observer.

"Although these Russian assault groups do not last long – they infiltrate into our rear, are photographed by drone, and then are almost immediately destroyed."

— Vladyslav Voloshyn, spokesman for the Southern Defense Forces

Context for partners and analysts

OSINT analysts and Western observers are already pointing out: visual confirmations require verification of context — the time of recording, geolocation, and evidence of active fighting. For international partners, such "flag" photos can create a false impression of the dynamics of the battles if they are not cross-checked with data from headquarters and independent sources.

Conclusion

This tactic is an example of how information warfare operates alongside combat: instead of real territorial control, the enemy invests in images meant to make others believe in its "successes." For Ukrainian defenders the key is to shift partners' attention from pictures to verified data and to results on the positions. While street fighting continues in Huliaipole and Stepnohirsk, it is facts, not impressive images, that will determine the course of events. Whether the international community can filter propaganda from reality is a question on which both strategic support and international perception of the campaign's progress depend.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026