Ukrainian military intelligence has confirmed that Denis Kapustin, the commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), is alive after a counterintelligence operation staged his death to thwart an assassination plot allegedly orchestrated by Russian special services. Reports indicated that Russia had allocated $500,000 for Kapustin's assassination, which was intended to eliminate him due to his leadership role in cross-border operations against Russia.

Initially reported dead on December 27, 2025, Kapustin later appeared via video link at a briefing with Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate (HUR), who acknowledged his "return to life." The operation not only preserved Kapustin's life but also allowed Ukrainian intelligence to identify individuals involved in the assassination plot and redirect the funds meant for his elimination towards supporting Ukrainian military efforts.

Kapustin has been associated with far-right ideologies and previously organized mixed martial arts events while running a clothing brand called White Rex. He founded the RDK shortly after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022 and has been active since moving to Ukraine in 2017. Following this incident, he expressed readiness to continue leading combat operations against Russian forces.

This event recalls a similar case involving journalist Arkady Babchenko, who faked his own death in 2018 with Ukrainian assistance to evade an assassination attempt. While both incidents faced scrutiny regarding their ethical implications, they highlight ongoing tensions between Ukraine and Russia amid the broader conflict and showcase unconventional tactics employed by Ukrainian intelligence.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (betrayal)

The article primarily discusses a specific incident involving Denis Kapustin and the Ukrainian military intelligence's counterintelligence operation. Here's an evaluation of its value based on several criteria:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide clear steps, choices, instructions, or tools that a reader can use in their daily life. It recounts events related to military operations and intelligence activities without offering any practical advice or actions for the general public.

Educational Depth: While the article touches on aspects of military strategy and intelligence operations, it lacks depth in explaining the broader context of these events. It does not delve into how such operations are typically conducted or what implications they might have for international relations or security. The mention of financial allocations for assassination plots is interesting but is not explored in detail to help readers understand its significance.

Personal Relevance: The information presented affects a specific group involved in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia rather than having broad relevance to most readers. For individuals outside this context, there are limited implications regarding safety, health, money, or personal decisions.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function effectively. It recounts a story without providing warnings or guidance that could help individuals act responsibly in similar situations. There is no actionable insight that would benefit the general public.

Practical Advice: There is no practical advice offered within the article that an ordinary reader could realistically follow. The narrative focuses on high-level military strategies rather than providing guidance applicable to everyday situations.

Long-Term Impact: The information presented appears focused solely on a singular event with no lasting benefits or lessons for readers to apply in their lives moving forward. It does not encourage planning ahead or improving habits beyond understanding this specific incident.

Emotional and Psychological Impact: While the article may evoke interest due to its dramatic content about espionage and counterintelligence, it lacks clarity or constructive thinking that would help alleviate fear or anxiety about such topics. Instead of empowering readers with knowledge, it may leave them feeling disconnected from complex geopolitical issues.

Clickbait Language: The language used is straightforward but lacks sensationalism typical of clickbait articles; however, it still focuses heavily on dramatic elements without delivering substantial insights.

In terms of missed opportunities for teaching or guiding readers through similar situations involving conflict and security issues, one could suggest ways to stay informed about global events by following reliable news sources and analyzing multiple perspectives on international relations. Additionally, understanding basic principles of personal safety during travel—such as being aware of one's surroundings and having contingency plans—could be beneficial when navigating areas affected by conflict.

Overall, while the article provides an intriguing account of a specific event within military intelligence operations, it fails to offer actionable insights or educational value relevant to most readers' lives. To enhance understanding around such topics generally involves seeking out comprehensive analyses from credible sources that explore underlying causes and consequences more thoroughly while also considering personal safety measures when engaging with global affairs.

The text uses strong words that push feelings when it describes the operation as a "significant failure for Russian special services." This choice of wording helps to frame the situation in a way that makes Ukraine appear victorious and competent. It emphasizes Ukrainian success while portraying Russian efforts as weak or incompetent. This bias serves to boost morale for those supporting Ukraine and diminish support for Russia.

The phrase "Ukrainian counterintelligence operation aimed at thwarting a Russian assassination plot" suggests a heroic narrative about Ukraine's intelligence capabilities. By using words like "thwarting" and "assassination plot," it creates a dramatic image of danger and urgency. This framing can lead readers to view Ukraine as a brave defender against threats, which may influence their perceptions positively toward Ukraine while negatively toward Russia.

When Budanov states that the operation "not only preserved Kapustin's life but also allowed Ukraine to seize the funds intended for his elimination," it implies an extraordinary level of strategic success. The use of "preserved" gives an impression of heroism, suggesting that without this operation, Kapustin would have certainly died. This wording can mislead readers into thinking that such operations are always successful without acknowledging any risks or failures involved.

The text mentions that Kapustin expressed readiness to resume command, which could imply he was not affected by his supposed death at all. This statement downplays any potential psychological or operational impact on him or his troops from this event. It presents an overly simplistic view of leadership dynamics in conflict situations, potentially misleading readers about the complexities involved in military command during crises.

The claim that this incident represents an important victory for Ukraine is presented as fact without providing evidence or context for what constitutes victory in this scenario. By framing it as such, it shapes public perception to see every small success as part of a larger triumph against Russia. This could lead readers to adopt an overly optimistic view regarding the ongoing conflict without recognizing its multifaceted nature and challenges faced by both sides.

The text conveys a range of emotions that reflect the complex dynamics of conflict and intelligence operations. One prominent emotion is relief, which emerges when Ukrainian military intelligence confirms that Denis Kapustin is alive. This revelation serves to alleviate fears regarding his safety and underscores a successful counterintelligence operation. The strength of this relief is significant, as it not only preserves an important figure but also highlights a strategic victory for Ukraine over Russian special services.

Another emotion present in the text is pride, particularly in the actions of Ukrainian intelligence. Kyrylo Budanov's statement about the operation's success demonstrates a sense of accomplishment and confidence in their capabilities. This pride is reinforced by the assertion that they thwarted an assassination plot while simultaneously seizing funds intended for Kapustin's elimination. The emotional weight here serves to bolster national morale and strengthen support for Ukrainian forces among readers.

Conversely, there is an element of anger directed towards Russian special services, implied through the description of their failed assassination attempt and the substantial financial resources allocated for such actions. This anger emphasizes the perceived incompetence or recklessness of these services, framing them as adversaries who underestimated Ukrainian intelligence efforts.

The emotions expressed throughout the text guide readers' reactions by creating sympathy for Kapustin while simultaneously fostering distrust towards Russian operatives. By portraying Ukraine’s actions as clever and resourceful, it inspires admiration and support for their military efforts against Russia. The narrative encourages readers to view this incident not merely as a tactical maneuver but as part of a broader struggle where Ukraine emerges resilient.

The writer employs emotional language strategically to enhance persuasion. Phrases like "significant failure" convey urgency and gravity regarding Russian operations, while "successful execution" instills confidence in Ukrainian capabilities. Such word choices elevate the stakes involved in this conflict narrative, making it more compelling than neutral descriptions would allow.

Additionally, repeating themes such as survival and strategic triumph reinforces key ideas throughout the text, ensuring they resonate with readers emotionally. By framing events within an overarching story of resilience against adversity—evidenced by Kapustin’s readiness to resume command—the writer effectively stirs feelings that align with national pride and determination.

In summary, through careful selection of emotionally charged language and strategic repetition of key themes, this text shapes perceptions about both sides in this conflict while encouraging empathy towards Ukraine's plight and skepticism toward Russia’s intentions.