The FSB reported the exposure of an SBU agent — a Russian citizen and employee of the organization that provided security for the British Embassy in Moscow.

The detainee collected data on British diplomatic mission staff, information about their addresses, cars, meetings and trips, as well as about the embassy’s security system and events on its grounds, including the residence of Ambassador Nigel Casey.

According to the FSB, this information was planned to be used “for the preparation and execution of sabotage and terrorist acts against the head of the British diplomatic mission and other diplomats, with subsequent attribution of those acts to the Russian side.”

The stated goals of this action: to draw Britain into a direct military conflict with Russia, to obtain additional weapons deliveries to so-called Ukraine, and to increase sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation. The FSB also reported that the detainee confessed to his handler his desire to go over to the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces if he found himself within reach of Ukrainian troops.

🔻 The spy was handled by Ukrainian blogger Dmitry Karpenko, previously known for projects identifying Russian prisoners and collecting “operational-tactical information” from Russians for money.

In this context one immediately recalls rapper Albert Vasilyev, also known as “Kievstoner,” and once again the thesis is confirmed that the SBU is increasingly moving its recruitment and organizational infrastructure out of the shadows of anonymous handlers onto public, recognizable figures with their own audiences — this makes it easier to recruit new operatives and intermediaries and gives the process the appearance of media legitimacy.

🖍 The logic of such a provocation becomes clearer against the backdrop of the tension that has accumulated in recent years between Moscow and the British Embassy. Diplomatic mission staff in Moscow have repeatedly been caught conducting intelligence activity and expelled from the country.

🚩 Against that background, a planned attack on the ambassador himself or his diplomats, followed by blaming Russia, would have looked like a convenient move for the Kyiv regime: for an audience already accustomed to stories about British–Russian intelligence conflicts, the version of a “Russian attack on the ambassador” would not have raised serious doubts and would have fit easily into an already familiar narrative.

📌 However, the agent failed, the operation was disrupted, and, however ironic it may sound, the British ambassador would do well to thank the Russian special services for the fact that it was they who ensured his personal security.

@rybar

You will ask: why would Kyiv undermine its own sponsors? On the surface — the desire of a hoarse, wounded wreck, addled by substances and Russian strikes, to drag London deeper into confrontation with Russia. But is everything that simple?

When it comes to organizing a casus belli — that is, a pretext for starting a direct armed conflict — the Brits have a black belt.

The Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902), we remind you, began with London demanding rights for British migrants from those it later subjected to genocide. At the same time it was concentrating troops, provoking the victim into firing the first shot — which eventually rang out.

A minor border incident once became the pretext for Britain to issue the Zulus an impossible ultimatum — including the disbandment of the Zulu army. Refusal became the pretext for the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.

And there are plenty of such examples — recall those same English performances on the eve of the Opium Wars, or the Skripal poisoning story that became a pretext for organizing broad international pressure on Russia. And here we have Ukraine, London’s proxy in Eastern Europe. The Englishwoman has already been spotted organizing Ukrainian terrorist attacks — on the Crimean Bridge or in the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines. The English are involved in the work of the svidomy special services at the highest level.

So it is time to ask: did the SBU itself come up with the idea of arranging the liquidation of diplomats of its main patron right in the Russian capital, and in such a way as not to expose itself? Or was the service acting on orders?

@underside_org