Russian Propagandist Solovyov Suggests Learning War Tactics From Ukraine

(MOSCOW) – Panic has once again erupted in Russian state television studios, with prominent propagandist Vladimir Solovyov struggling to explain the repeated failures of Russian air defence systems and the military’s inability to achieve the objectives of the so called “special military operation.”

During a heated broadcast, Solovyov expressed visible frustration while attempting to account for why Ukrainian drones continue to strike targets deep inside Russian territory, sometimes up to 1,000 kilometres from the border. His inability to provide coherent answers reflects a broader crisis within the Kremlin’s information apparatus, where responsibility for systemic failures is never allowed to travel upward toward the Russian dictator or his inner circle. In Russian state media, failure is invariably attributed to enemies, outside forces or planned provocations rather than leadership incompetence or strategic miscalculation.

The Russian army remains deeply mired in the war against Ukraine, with no credible signs that full control over Donbas can be achieved in the near future. Nevertheless, Moscow continues to present territorial conquest as a precondition for any peace talks. The fundamental question is whether the Kremlin is actually in a position to set conditions at all.

Russia clearly did not anticipate such a protracted conflict. The early predictions of capturing Kyiv within three days and the documented discovery of Russian soldiers carrying parade uniforms during the initial invasion reveal an expectation of swift victory that never materialised. When this plan collapsed, the search for scapegoats began inside Russia, though the dictator himself remains shielded from accountability.

Solovyov, in a moment of unguarded candour, questioned the fundamental efficacy of the Russian war effort. “I genuinely do not understand,” he stated. “If we need 100,000 air defence systems and 20 million missiles, what is stopping us from mass producing what we already know how to make? Why should this be done by a single factory instead of 100 factories?” The outburst suggests that even the most loyal propagandists are beginning to grasp the scale of Russia’s industrial and organisational shortcomings.

The rhetoric within Solovyov’s studio has grown increasingly extreme, with direct calls to send opponents and critics to the front lines as expendable manpower. At the same time, the propaganda apparatus has been forced to acknowledge an uncomfortable reality: the recruitment system relies overwhelmingly on enormous financial incentives rather than ideological motivation. Payments worth thousands of dollars are offered to so called volunteers, exposing the fiction of a patriotic crusade.

In a telling indication of economic strain, discussions in Solovyov’s studio have even included suggestions that ordinary Russian citizens should contribute financially to weapons production. “No money, tell the people, we will chip in,” one participant proposed. The notion of passing a collection plate for missiles starkly contradicts the image of Russia as a great economic power capable of sustaining indefinite military operations.

The propagandists have also been forced to confront the suffocating effect of Russian bureaucracy on the war effort. In a remarkable admission, there were suggestions that Moscow should learn from Kyiv’s management systems. “Look at their management systems, American ones, what the Ukrainians are currently implementing,” a panellist urged. “Do not hesitate to adopt the best practices.” The notion that Russia should emulate the country it invaded is a stunning departure from standard propaganda tropes.

Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries have exposed both the weakness of Russian air defences and the shrinking financial resources available to continue the war. As revenues decline, the desperation within state media becomes increasingly apparent.

Solovyov has also directed criticism at Russian citizens who flee to Dubai to avoid the consequences of the war, telling them to visit Kursk or Bryansk instead, claiming conditions there are no better. He omits the essential point that these regions are now dangerous precisely because the Russian dictator initiated an unprovoked invasion of a peaceful neighbour. Without that decision, none of these circumstances would exist.

The broadcast featured the standard repertoire of threats against European nations, with panellists calling for strikes against Germany, Poland, Romania, Denmark and Britain. “They openly claim that they are producing weapons for Ukraine on their territory,” one participant declared. “Why do we not destroy them? Are we afraid of the response?” The discussion also returned to the recurring theme of tactical nuclear weapons, presented as a realistic option for resolving the conflict.

Russian propaganda has recycled the discredited “dirty bomb” narrative, this time directing the accusation toward Germany. This claim follows the same pattern as previous baseless assertions that Ukraine was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The repetition of debunked stories reveals an information apparatus that has exhausted its capacity for original fabrication.

In an escalation of threats against private enterprise, Solovyov declared that corporations including Tesla and SpaceX are “fighting against us” and that their assets should be considered “legitimate targets” for destruction. He specifically named Elon Musk, whom Russian propagandists blame for the failure of their spring offensive due to Starlink’s operational restrictions on Russian forces. The logic, such as it is, demands revenge against a private citizen whose technology has aided Ukrainian defence.

Solovyov also invoked Vladimir Lenin as a model of military seriousness, urging his audience to “follow the example of the Supreme Commander in Chief, Vladimir Putin.” The comparison of the Russian dictator to the architect of Soviet terror is unintentionally apt, though not in the manner Solovyov intended.

The broadcast concluded with the usual fabrications about Russian speakers in Donbas having suffered since 2014, ignoring the fundamental fact that Donetsk and Luhansk have never been Russian territory and that the suffering there was instigated by Russian backed separatist forces and the subsequent full scale invasion ordered by the Kremlin.