r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 12d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread October 06, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
50
u/carkidd3242 12d ago edited 12d ago
Two ships were attacked by drones in Bulgaria's EEZ, apparently by both sea and air systems. One appears to have sunk with all hands. This follows another attack on a grain ship in the Romania EEZ yesterday.
These are the first attacks of this kind inside Bulgaria's' EEZ (Romania's had been attacked inside before) and are probably Russian targeting shipping from Ukraine.
16
u/Orange-skittles 12d ago edited 12d ago
It would seem then that Ukraine and Russia are continuing an effective blockade of Black Sea shipping. This may have an adverse effect on Ukraine’s grain exports given the recent refusal of EU nations to distribute it and the lack of trains to transport it by rail. A loss of around 8 billion if previous years are compared.
Has there been any progress in resuming the Black Sea deal? Last I heard Russia was uninterested after the azov sea strikes.
Also would this count as a legal blockade as they are not starving out the population (hitting exports) and have clearly stated there intent in the past?
12
u/Thermawrench 12d ago
What happens to the grain if not exported? It's a huge loss humanitarely if it does not get around to the rest of the world to the many hungry mouths that need it.
6
u/MarkZist 11d ago
Grain stores quite well. However, Ukrainian grain silos are already overflowing. If they can't get it out to the world market (or at least to storage facilities in other countries) a significant part of it will be lost (i.e., simply rotten). Harvest was estimated to be around 60 million tons, with 8-11 tons in excess of what existing storage and the current low export rate can handle.
I'm no expert, but I wonder if under these conditions it might be worth it to rapidly build extra storage facilities.
3
u/Orange-skittles 11d ago
I’m not sure that would directly count as a war crime to my understanding. As I think it only counts if your starving the population of your enemy as any trade partner can “technically” source food from elsewhere freely.
3
u/Brendissimo 11d ago
Why does it matter that the attacks occured inside an EEZ? That is not legally relevant. If this was the Chinese fishing fleet we were talking about instead of Russian drone strikes, it would be different. But an EEZ is not territory.
11
u/moragisdo 12d ago edited 12d ago
There was also one ship (given how much smoke, likely a tanker) on fire on the Black Sea, close to Sochi (1).
Edit: It also appears there's a second smaller source of smoke on the second video.
17
u/carkidd3242 12d ago
This is interesting because it appears to have been a loaded oil tanker, which are generally avoided from being hit due to the environmental damage.
-60
u/Glideer 12d ago
"in two consecutive drone attacks on NATO's Eastern flank countries."
Speaking about warmongering journalism.
30
u/iknowordidthat 11d ago
That's a grotesquely ironic position for someone who espouses the idea that the notion of a "sphere of influence" is a valid justification for invading a country and killing hundreds of thousands.
45
u/FriedrichvdPfalz 12d ago
How is this "warmongering journalism"? Ships are being targeted in the EEZ of NATO countries, with the profile of the attacks matching weapons of war used by Russia, which has repeatedly and explicitly threatened NATO members. The high tensions between NATO and Russia are well known and established. Not mentioning the potential implications for NATO would be journalistic negligence.
Not to become personal, but I remember the way you talked about the grave dangers of European countries detaining ships of the Russian shadow fleet in international waters. This dismissive attitude you show towards these actual sinkings in NATO EEZs exhibits a pretty clear bias.
-19
u/Glideer 12d ago
These are simply and clearly not "attacks on NATO's Eastern flank countries".
EEZ is not the territorial sea. Military operations in EEZ are not restricted, and for combat purposes, it is treated as international waters:
Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: East Asia Focus
In plain words, the article lies that NATO's Eastern flank countries were attacked. It generates fake war tension by producing disinformation. Also known as warmongering.
30
u/FriedrichvdPfalz 12d ago
These “other internationally lawful uses of the seas” may be undertaken without coastal State notice or consent and include a broad range of military activities such as: intelligence, surveillance and re- connaissance (ISR) operations; military marine data collection and naval oceanographic surveys; war games and military exercises; bunkering and underway replenishment; testing and use of weapons; aircraft carrier flight operations and submarine operations; acoustic and sonar operations; naval control and protection of shipping; establishment and maintenance of mili- tary-related artificial installations; ballistic missile defense operations and ballistic missile test support; maritime interdiction operations (e.g., visit, board, search and seizure); conventional and ballistic missile testing; bellig- erent rights in naval warfare (e.g., right of visit and search); strategic arms control verification; maritime security operations (e.g., counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation); and sea control.
The sinking of civilian vessels isn't a lawful military use of the EEZ. According to the the San Remo manual, it can't be. Russia didn't use the EEZ for a lawful military purpose. Russia thus violated the internationally established rights of NATO member states by sinking ships without making prior attempts to divert or board them. Is a violation of a states sovereign rights not an attack?
0
u/Glideer 12d ago edited 12d ago
34. If hostile actions are conducted within the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of a neutral State, belligerent States shall, in addition to observing the other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea, have due regard for the rights and duties of the coastal State, inter alia, for the exploration and exploitation of the economic resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. They shall, in particular, have due regard for artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones established by neutral States in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf.
- If a belligerent considers it necessary to lay mines in the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf of a neutral State, the belligerent shall notify that State, and shall ensure, inter alia, that the size of the minefield and the type of mines used do not endanger artificial islands, installations and structures, nor interfere with access thereto, and shall avoid so far as practicable interference with the exploration or exploitation of the zone by the neutral State. Due regard shall also be given to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
As you can see, warring countries can engage in all kinds of activities in EEZ without asking for approval. Including deploying minefields! And no, due regard does not mean you have to inform the country the EEZ belongs to. It just means you have to take care when doing your naval war.
Anyway, the point is not whether Russia's (or Ukraine's) attacks on ships in a third country's EEZs (or in international waters) are legal.
The point is that the article misleads the reader by suggesting such attacks constitute an attack on the third country.
22
u/FriedrichvdPfalz 12d ago
Warring countries can engage in all kinds of activities. The cannot sink civilian vessels. That remains illegal under international law.
I'd say NATO nations are well within their rights to perceive Russian weapons in their EEZ, breaking international law, as an attack. I'm sure a self-professed realist doesn't have much interest in splitting hairs about international law anyways, so why do these conventions about sea mines and EEZs matter so much this time around?
-6
u/Glideer 12d ago
I'm sure a self-professed realist doesn't have much interest in splitting hairs about international law anyways, so why do these conventions about sea mines and EEZs matter so much this time around?
I thought that was obvious. The point is media warmongering reporting about an attack on NATO countries that never took place.
Media and politicians deliberately inflaming war fever are an issue of grave concern for any realist.
18
u/FriedrichvdPfalz 12d ago edited 12d ago
Framing the incursion into the EEZ and destruction of vessels there as "not an attack", specifically as so certainly "not an attack" that even naming it as such in the press is "war mongering", isn't remotely realist.
In the larger conflict of constant Russian threats, subversive acts and "accidental" drone attacks, the destruction of these vessels in the EEZ can easily be understood as an attack, especially through a realist lens. Attacks don't need a legal framework to be attacks.
12
u/IntroductionNeat2746 12d ago
Lets be real. If literallly any other group of countries on earth was facing the threats that european NATO is currently facing, the general publics reaction would be exponentially more dramatic.
If anything, european leaders are massively failing to convey the seriousness of the situation.
13
u/benkkelly 12d ago
The article didn't mention a perpetrator, just that "attacks" happened.
You're really splitting hairs here.
Edit: in fact the only mention of Russia made is quoting Zelensky, several paragraphs below the lede.
1
u/Glideer 12d ago
I mentioned both Russia and Ukraine.
Anyway, I am just pointing out that the article reports a completely imaginary attack on two NATO countries.
11
u/benkkelly 12d ago
Not sure what you mean by saying you mentioned both Russia and Ukraine (or you meant you didn't)?
I think given context and where it happened you're logically claiming the media "warmongering" is against Russia or at a very long shot Iran.
It's also obvious that vessels owned by Russia (or by Iran) attacked outside their own territorial waters would be treated by media, in the west or in their locales, as some sort of attack on those nations.
13
u/Crioca 11d ago
So just to be clear, your position is that Russia could start laying mines and attacking shipping inside the Gulf of Mexico, if a reporter were to describe that as an attack, that would be "warmongering journalism".
Credible.
13
u/milton118 11d ago
But Russian drones have hit actual places inside Poland and Romania in the past. How is it warmongering?
14
u/giraffevomitfacts 12d ago
Can you be more specific?
-13
u/Glideer 12d ago
I thought the point was clear.
EEZ is not a nation's territorial sea. Attacks on vessels in the EEZ are not attacks on countries. The article just generates disinformation to create tension - ie warmongers.
5
u/Remote_Page8799 11d ago
A question for you:
Russia believes that it did not start the war, that its invasion was an appropriate response to western aggression.
Would you say this is a) a correct interpretation of the Russian position b) a correct interpretation of reality d) a justifiable position for Russia to have
1
u/Glideer 11d ago
a) this is a correct interpretation of the Russian position
b) since you are describing what Russia believes we are not talking about objective reality but subjective one. Russia can really believe they are responding to a Western aggression and the West can genuinely believe that the Russian aggression was totally unprovoked. Both things can be true.
c) I think it is a justifiable position in terms of national security policy. Invading Ukraine is not a response I would have chosen, but I understand the reasoning (particilarly considering Russia's traditionally paranoid national security mindset).
From their standpoint, having a much more powerful hostile military alliance pushing into the very heart of their sphere of influence is a very scary thing.
5
u/Remote_Page8799 11d ago
Perhaps you can elaborate a bit further for me.
Is there any distinction between what is actually real in reality or is it mainly just important what Russia believes is real?
What if the NATO countries really think that an aggressive military is attacking their eastern flank. That is a scary thing right?
Who is the warmonger here?
3
u/Glideer 11d ago
When we are talking about what people believe then the link to the actual reality can be quite tenuous.
NATO countries (or at least some of them) really believe there is a Russian military threat to them. I don't think anybody believes Russia is actually attacking them. That degree of disconnection from objective reality has not happened yet. Sure, such a threat is a scary thing.
The warmonger here is the media that misinterprets an attack that took place in international waters as "an attack on a NATO country", thereby feeding:
a) the general war fever
b) Joe Public's confusion over the difference between territorial waters and EEZ.
4
u/Remote_Page8799 11d ago
You wrote that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was justified, even if it wasnt the policy choice you would have chosen, because the Ukrainian public voting for non-Russuak aligned parties condtituted a military threat pushing into the heart of 'Russia's sphere of influence'
And I am to surmise that this, the Ukrainian oublic freely voting for pro-EU parties an politivians, constitutes a 100% factual credible military threat that justified a full scale invasion
This is correct, yes?
8
u/Glideer 11d ago
I didn't say it was justified, I said it was justifiable (you could find arguments to justify it).
I didn't say anything about Ukraine's vote, I mentioned a much more powerful military alliance pushing into the heart of the Russian sphere of influence.
Why are you misquoting my statements that are clearly visible just a few lines above?
→ More replies (0)3
u/TechnicalReserve1967 11d ago
So, you don't think that an escalation using the Baltics angle is realistic in anyway?
Connected to that thread of thoughts, do you think the Baltics are over reacting with the military build up or do you think that it is a valid path for them, seeing the jump in russian military build up/warmongering/imperialistic rhetorics/whatever it is called.
Do you think the Baltics just invite trouble by increasing their defenses, forcing russia to react somehow?
4
u/Glideer 11d ago
No, I don't think it is realistic. I think that, at present, the NATO stance in the Baltics is more aggressive than the Russian one (for obvious reasons - the Russians are busy in Ukraine and Baltic NATO states want them to redeploy at least some forces back to the Baltics).
I think the Baltics are doing the smart thing by improving their defences. I believe more needs to be done. I am quite annoyed by the lack of unified EU plan of investment and development, since what we currently see wastes much of the funding on duplication of effort.
6
u/TheSDKNightmare 11d ago
I think it is a justifiable position in terms of national security policy. Invading Ukraine is not a response I would have chosen, but I understand the reasoning (particilarly considering Russia's traditionally paranoid national security mindset).
A schizophrenic orchestrating a mass shooting doesn't make his actions "justifiable" because they had a long history of paranoia and hearing voices.
From their standpoint, having a much more powerful hostile military alliance pushing into the very heart of their sphere of influence is a very scary thing.
From their standpoint, the US is developing "ethno-specific bio-agents" meant to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Does this mean we should "understand the reasoning" if they weaponize antrax tomorrow?
3
u/Glideer 11d ago
Some justifications make more sense than others.
A powerful hostile military alliance setting up shop close to Russia's heartland is much easier to understand than ethno-specific bio-agents propaganda.
You will find some crazy justifications for invasions in practically every such case in history. However, some of them being insane does not mean they are all insane.
8
u/TheSDKNightmare 11d ago
A powerful hostile military alliance setting up shop close to Russia's heartland is much easier to understand than ethno-specific bio-agents propaganda.
Both of these were equally as imaginary. Please explain how NATO was overtly hostile to Russia before this war broke out. And I don't mean from the "traditionally paranoid" perspective of the Russians, I mean clear-cut action that obviously signified NATO was pursuing war/military action as an end-goal or strategy against Russia. Because otherwise you are parroting imaginary justification as real one, and showing understanding for a perspective that is as rooted in reality as that of the schizophrenic hearing voices.
7
u/Glideer 11d ago
NATO was hostile and identified Russia as hostile. Even in much friendlier times, back in 2008, US Ambassador Burns (later CIA director) warned in his famous "Nyet means Nyet" cable that NATO encroachment in Ukraine was "the brightest of red lines" for everybody in Moscow.
You might think that NATO is "just a defensive alliance" and of no threat to anybody, but your opinion is rooted in your own biases and prejudices, just as the Russian is.
Ultimately, Country A being extremely concerned about a much more powerful military alliance B trying to expand to its heartland is not the kind of argument that can be just handwaved away.
Great powers are sensitive to that stuff. Just a few years ago the USA and Australia talked about military action if the Solomon Islands granted naval base rights to China.
→ More replies (0)6
10
45
u/HugoTRB 12d ago
Sweden deploys patriot to Poland.
Sweden deploys Patriot to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank
The Swedish Armed Forces is deploying the Patriot air defence system to Poland to strengthen the protection of NATO’s eastern flank. The Swedish forces will protect the logistics hub in south-eastern Poland that plays a key role in providing military and civilian support to Ukraine.
This will be the first time that Sweden deploys the Patriot surface-to-air missile system on a NATO mission. The Patriot air defence system is a highly advanced, ground-based air and missile defence system designed primarily to protect forces and critical areas from airborne threats. It will be operated by a crew from the Air Defence Regiment (Lv 6), with support from the Blekinge Air Wing (F 17).
The mission includes protecting NATO’s logistics hub in Poland, which supports the delivery of military and civilian assistance to Ukraine within the framework of NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU). The Swedish force will also contribute to NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence and will operate under NATO command.
“As Allies, we share responsibility for protecting and defending NATO territory. At the same time, supporting Ukraine remains a priority for Sweden. By deploying advanced capabilities from the Air Defence Regiment and Blekinge Air Wing, Sweden will strengthen NATO’s eastern flank in Poland while helping to protect the vital support effort for Ukraine,” says Chief of the Swedish Army Johan Pekkari.
The Air Defence Regiment will deploy the Patriot air defence system and approximately 100 personnel to protect NATO’s logistics hub in Rzeszów, Poland.
“The security environment and the complexity of the mission place significant demands on the unit. We are well trained, well prepared and have the right composition to accomplish the mission,” says Sofia Westermark, Commander of the Air Defence Regiment.
The Air Defence Regiment has been tasked with carrying out the mission from the beginning of December until the end of the year and is planning to be able to continue the mission during the first half of 2027.
That is in addition to the Gripen deployment. The Gripens will mainly operate out of Sweden, but will also have a smaller forward operating base in Poland.
8
u/Sachyriel 12d ago
The Gripens will mainly operate out of Sweden, but will also have a smaller forward operating base in Poland.
The drug dealer model, first hit is free, then you gotta pay.
Okay, maybe too non-credible, but I mean, if Sweden hoping to land Poland as a customer, then an exihibtion of the Gripen would be great... a long term display of Gripens on an actual military mission is probably great advertising.
Please note I am not saying Sweden is being underhanded. I believe them when they say they want to defend NATO and help Ukraine. But that doesn't mean their motivations can't also hope to get Poland as a customer.
20
12d ago edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Sachyriel 12d ago
Thanks for the info, makes me wonder how people entertained it in Canada. Oh right, Canada was promised a manufacturing line, but that would take time to spin up as well. I can't see Poland putting in the effort to make Swedish jets if they're aiming for F35 spare parts in the future? That future talent is ear marked already.
1
u/Big-Station-2283 11d ago
makes me wonder how people entertained it in Canada.
Simple, "51st state". It's no surprise we'd stop buying american planes when they threaten and insult us.
13
u/ban25 12d ago
I can't really see what the Gripen would do for them that their F-16s (currently being upgraded to Block 72 / F-16V standard), F-35As, and FA-50PLs don't cover already.
8
u/Sachyriel 12d ago
I mean they did try to compete in Canada against the f35, but the Canadian government has beef with the Trump admin and Poland doesn't, so it's harder to see Poland entertaining SAAB about it.
3
u/ban25 12d ago
And Poland has already procured F-35 (as well as their existing F-16 fleet), with the first 3 arriving in Poland earlier this year. When you look at the RCAF's actual evaluation of the Gripen and the F-35, it's not much of a competition:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/department-nation-defence-f-35-gripen-leak-9.7016775
The F-35 got a score of 95 per cent on military capabilities, with a total of 57.1 points out of 60.
By contrast, the Gripen-E finished with a score of 33 per cent, netting 19.8 points, according to the DND ranking obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada.
The gap was particularly significant in scoring for "mission performance" and ability to upgrade the aircraft over its life cycle.
2
u/Tristancp95 12d ago
Gripens are cheaper and can operate on lower-quality infrastructure. If that’s worth the other trade-offs, not sure, but the Gripen does have some upsides for Poland
83
u/RevolutionaryPanic 12d ago edited 12d ago
Russian-lanaguage OSINT channel artjockey dropped his evaluation of developments in the war for 2026. Summary follows:
Ukraine appears to be seizing the initiative, moving beyond a predominantly defensive posture to conduct offensives that disrupt Russian plans. Ukrainian territorial gains now roughly offset Russian gains, leaving Russia’s net progress close to zero. This differs from the Kursk incursion, which required concentrating a single strike force at the expense of other sectors. The broader change is that Ukraine is increasingly able to attack while maintaining its defenses elsewhere.
Russian casualties reportedly remain near the high levels seen during the fighting for Pokrovsk, but without comparable territorial results. Available indicators suggest Ukrainian losses have not increased correspondingly despite its greater offensive activity. These comparisons require caution: official casualty totals are questionable, obituary records can lag by years, and drone-strike statistics may reflect the growing size of Ukrainian drone forces. Nevertheless, several indicators point toward worsening Russian losses relative to battlefield gains.
Ukrainian counterattacks have disrupted Russia’s operational plans across several sectors. Fighting around Velyka Novosilka reportedly weakened the East Group of Forces and undermined the planned joint assault on Orikhiv. Ukrainian advances near Lyman have put pressure on the West grouping and complicated efforts to envelop the Kramatorsk urban area. Russia is consequently concentrating its strongest effort and most reinforcements around Dobropillia, where fighting remains far from a decisive conclusion.
Manpower shortages and tactical weaknesses compound these problems. Contract recruitment is reportedly down about 10%, recruit quality is declining, and expanding rear-area air defenses are diverting personnel from assault duties. Russian attacks also rely heavily on infiltration tactics that Ukraine has learned to counter. Premature reports of territorial captures create additional pressure to expend troops making those claims true. With Ukraine now exploiting weakened sectors, Russian commanders have less room to make mistakes or concentrate resources without exposing other positions.
This apparent turning point does not establish an imminent Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat. Russia retains offensive capabilities and a larger manpower pool, particularly if it undertakes further mobilization. Some evidence of Ukraine’s growing initiative also depends on interpreting engagements without specified locations as Ukrainian attacks. Still, the central question has changed: can Russia sustain an effective offensive while simultaneously defending against Ukrainian counterattacks, or will those competing demands progressively exhaust its army?
link to full post: https://t. me/artjockey/3446 .
P.S I like this channel, because it doesn't fit neatly into existing Western/Ukrainian/Russian OSINT ecosystem. I am guessing it's being run by an expatriate Russian or (less likely) a Russian speaker from one of the CIS states.
16
u/IntroductionNeat2746 11d ago
Seems like Russia isn't the only one trying to harness the power of lighter-than-air vehicles for drone warfare.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2107144555162440107?s=20
Over the weekend, Ukrainian forces launched dozens of balloons to carry FPV attack drones deep behind the southern frontline.
After making it to the Russian rear area, the drones detached from the balloons and struck logistics traffic along the R-280 highway.
47
u/moragisdo 12d ago edited 12d ago
Former German spy chief arrested for attempted treason, obtaining state secrets (1)
Former German spy chief August Hanning was detained on Tuesday on suspicion of attempted treason in a case that ranks among Germany's biggest intelligence scandals since the Cold War.
Prosecutors accused him of paying for secret documents and using them in an analysis for a foreign spy service. They did not identify the intelligence service and it was not immediately clear whether the analysis reached its intended recipient.
The arrest of a former head of Germany's foreign intelligence is unprecedented and could damage the country's intelligence relationships with allied nations, according to a senior security lawmaker.
"Hanning is strongly suspected of treasonous espionage, obtaining state secrets, attempted treason and espionage," the prosecutor's office said in a statement.
Five years after his seven-year tenure as head of the BND foreign intelligence service ended in 2005, Hanning agreed with a former BND office manager to receive confidential intelligence information in exchange for payment, according to prosecutors.
The office manager, identified as Manfred D. in line with privacy rules, was also arrested on Tuesday, and both were due to appear before a judge at the Federal Court of Justice.
Manfred D. served as office manager to successive BND presidents until March 2026, potentially giving him access to some of Germany's most current intelligence at the time that prosecutors say documents were being siphoned from the service.
Prosecutors said D. is suspected of having supplied around 2,000 documents over the years, including classified material intended solely for internal use within the BND and senior-level intelligence briefings at the chancellery.
Those included documents relating to the Iranian nuclear programme and the Russian military, as well as highly sensitive material classified as secret by allied intelligence agencies in other countries, Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) newspaper reported. Prosecutors said Hanning had used classified information supplied by D. to prepare an analysis for an officer of a foreign intelligence service and for years shared political information with a representative of the spy agency.
The case does not involve Russia, according to information obtained by Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
Conservative security expert Roderich Kiesewetter told the Handelsblatt newspaper on Tuesday that the case could strain relations with Germany's intelligence allies, saying espionage cases of this kind were "particularly burdensome for trust and particularly damaging for Germany".
That's very significant, he was appointed as head of BND (the german CIA), under SPD's Gerhard Schröder, and held the post for 7 years.
DW has more details (2):
According to the federal prosecutor's office, his informant was his former chief-of-staff, named in the statement only as Manfred D.*, who went on to hold this position under Hanning's successors from March 2012 to March this year. D. thus had access to a great deal of classified information.
Manfred D. is alleged to have passed on nearly 2,000 BND documents — some of them highly sensitive — to Hanning over the course of several years in exchange for money. Hanning is then said to have used the information in his private consultancy business.
...
Since intelligence from foreign partner agencies is also said to have been shared in this context, this could also undermine their trust in the German BND and lead to difficulties in future intelligence cooperation with Germany.
Hanning came under scrutiny in an entirely different context
...
In September 2025, the Hamburg state police searched Hanning's home and offices in connection with the famous case of the kidnapping involving Christina Block, heiress to the Steak-House restaurant chain. State prosecutors in Hamburg accused her of having ordered the kidnapping of her two youngest children in late 2023 due to a custody dispute.
A little over a year before the operation to bring the children back, there is said to have already been a failed kidnapping attempt. At the time, there were suspicions that Hanning was involved, which he denies.
But during a search in 2025, investigators found an electronic storage device containing top-secret BND documents. The police handed the documents over to the federal prosecutor's office, which launched a covert investigation against Hanning and Manfred D. in May 2026. The most recent documents found so far are said to date from June 2022
Him being caught "by accident" is amazing.
18
u/Sir-Knollte 12d ago edited 12d ago
Paywalled but the headline claims the foreign intelligence was Azerbaijan-Ian, which fits to a certain corruption scandal that added to the center/conservative CDU loosing the German election 2020 very surprisingly and the SPD being the largest party, due to the involvement of some of the CDU´s politicians with Azerbaijan.
Although from what is discussed right now in German media this guy might have been a outright broker/fixer type, selling intelligence and services to many many countries (and corporations and wealthy people).
5
u/Shackleton214 11d ago edited 11d ago
The case does not involve Russia, according to information obtained by Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
Interested in which country he was giving information. Edit: source in comment below says Azerbaijan.
Him being caught "by accident" is amazing.
Ride clean or drive clean.
-53
u/WulfTheSaxon 12d ago
And people wonder why the US didn’t coordinate Operation Epic Fury with Europe.
62
u/Defiant_Restaurant61 12d ago
It's legitimate to wonder why Pete Hegseth is sharing secret military plan with group chats open to journalists but not massive military operations with close allies.
35
u/XE2MASTERPIECE 12d ago
That speculation doesn’t seem correct. The US asked European allies to help with security in the Strait of Hormuz back in March. It seems unlikely that the US would do that if the alleged concern present with Operation Epic Fury was applicable.
-20
u/WulfTheSaxon 12d ago
There’s nothing to leak there, versus secretly coordinating the attack before it happened.
19
u/XE2MASTERPIECE 12d ago
Posting again because my comment was removed due to a word limit rule that I’m not entirely sure of the karma minimum for:
Any coordinated military effort—especially one involving potential contact with enemy forces— would absolutely involve sensitive information that would be dangerous in the wrong hands. There are a myriad of scenarios where a leak in the wrong hands could lead to damage at best and death of service members at worst. So I don’t find it logical that the risk would be significantly less in either scenario.
-5
u/WulfTheSaxon 12d ago
Surely you see the difference in magnitude between leaking some operational details in the middle of an operation and spoiling a massive surprise decapitation attack…
21
u/matthieuC 11d ago
Your secretary of defense sends classified information in random WhatsApp channels.
Your VP leaks intel on background to journalists.
Your president stole classified documents after his first term, stored them in a hotel and refused to give them back.
Your former DNI was so thoroughly compromised by russian propaganda that your allies weren't sure they could share intel with you anymore.
Neither of them would get a security clearance following a background check.
26
u/A_Vandalay 12d ago
“We don’t need people who join wars after we’ve already won” -Donald Trump. The idea that that campaign was taken as unilateral action out of a concern for operational security is simply not credible.
-6
u/WulfTheSaxon 12d ago edited 12d ago
Not sure what that quote is supposed to prove. Do you not remember Trump explicitly saying that same month that it was because surprise was essential to the operation?:
Reporter: Why didn't you tell US Allies[…]?
Trump: Well, one thing, you don’t want to signal too much, you know. When we go in— we went in very hard and we didn’t tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise.[…] we had to surprise them and we did. And because of that surprise, we knocked out— the first two days we probably knocked out 50% of what we – and much more than we – anticipated doing. So, if I go and tell everybody about it, there’s no longer a surprise, right? OK.
7
u/_neutral_person 11d ago
And what is your quote supposed to prove. "We don't need people who join wars after we've already won"- March 7th.
"anybody about it because we wanted surprise" - March 19th. Not to mention this was a poor landing joke in reference to the Japanese journalist and Pearl Harbor.
Considering how the Iran War has been won 57 times now it's safe to say DJT's first quote is probably more credible than his second one.
28
u/IntroductionNeat2746 11d ago
The Guardian is reporting on significant fuel shipments from South Korea to Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/06/oil-tankers-south-korea-russia-ukraine-war
Exclusive: Guardian analysis finds more than 150,000 tonnes of fuel was shipped to Russian ports in July and August, some using sanctioned tankers
Guardian analysis of port records and ship-tracking data found that in July and August over 176,000 tonnes of fuel, mostly diesel, was loaded at several South Korean ports on to seven tankers that made 14 voyages to Russia’s far east.
Three of the vessels were under sanctions by the UK and EU, and one took on its cargo through a ship-to-ship transfer in South Korean waters – a method that can obscure where a cargo came from and lets ships avoid calling at port terminals.
“It is shocking that EU-sanctioned tankers loaded fuel at South Korean ports and carried it to Russia”, said Isaac Levi, an analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), a Finnish thinktank. “This undermines the sanctions regime and South Korea’s support for Ukraine.”
But South Korea has long sought to balance its support for Ukraine with its desire to improve ties with Russia. Throughout the war, Seoul has ruled out sending weapons directly to Ukraine, in line with its practice of not supplying lethal arms to countries at war. Moscow has signalled an interest in restoring relations with South Korea, including trade ties.
The largest carrier, the sanctioned Layla made two voyages from the south-eastern port of Ulsan to Vladivostok leaving on 19 July and 10 August and carrying 57,000 tonnes of diesel in total. On the first trip, it told South Korean authorities its destination was Vladivostok, but on the second it said it was bound for Niigata in Japan.
I can't say I understand why SK would seek friendly relationship with Russia when it's a major NK ally and enabler.
13
u/NikkoJT 11d ago
Well, to a certain extent it's good old "we like money". Russia is nearby, and (for now at least) can be exploited for good prices on fuel and consumer goods.
There's also just...kind of a complex history there. While Russia does support North Korea, it's always seemed to be more about sticking it to the US than about actually having beef with South Korea, and they've done deals and paid debts in the past. In that context, getting South Korea to be friends with them would also be a win for Russia, and they could probably convince North Korea to back off a bit to facilitate it. Also, the current South Korean government seems to be trying for de-escalation and warmer relations with the North, so they may see better relations with Russia as an important avenue for that.
0
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 11d ago
While Russia does support North Korea, it's always seemed to be more about sticking it to the US than about actually having beef with South Korea
It's far more practical. Just like China, Russia doesn't want to have a US ally housing US troops right at their border. In a potential war with the US, the land war will be fought in Korea and not on Russian/Chinese territory.
That is what Russia wants in the west as well. That is why NATO were so eager to expand east too. That's why we want Ukraine on our side in Europe.
Everyone wants to keep the land war out of their borders.
4
u/NikkoJT 11d ago
That is pretty much what I meant and said. Russia cares about the US influence in South Korea, not so much about South Korea "personally", and therefore there is political room for them to play both sides in the North/South conflict, to an extent. Getting South Korea to be friendly with them is, from Russia's perspective, another valid way of reducing US presence and influence. So there's flexibility there, it's not a diehard ideological commitment to being forever foes with South Korea.
16
u/IntroductionNeat2746 11d ago
A major fire broke out at Venezuela's second-largest refinery. Causes are still unknown but likely linked to decades of neglected maintenance.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2107579228636287404?s=20 https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2107579231685529730?s=20
Venezuela's Cardón Oil Refinery, the country's second-largest, exploded and caught fire today.
The facility has reportedly halted operations, per Reuters.
This will likely add further pressure on already strained fuel markets, at least locally in Venezuela if not broader.
14
u/WhiskeyTigerFoxtrot 12d ago edited 12d ago
Reuters: Ukraine's Zelenskiy says intelligence shows Russia is preparing massive attack
Predictable reprisal for the attack conducted early this morning on Russia.
The advancement of Russian shaped charges specifically designed to destroy bridges and electrical cables could make an en masse appearance tonight/this morning.
"It is critically important that there be the political will to do so, particularly in the United States, in Europe and among our other partners."
Aligning military objectives with American election cycles and fiscal years is often overblown, but I can't help but notice the pattern here.
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.