Although for many it is a complete unknown, the figure of Kyrylo Budanov is key to understand the functioning of Ukrainian intelligence in the conflict with Moscow. This is the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.
Just a few days ago Budanov came out to testify in front of the media, he did so frankly and a phrase that leaves no room for ambiguity: “Yes, we can. That’s what we get paid for” which translated, means “Yes, we can. That’s what they pay us for.” With this, he confirmed what until now were only rumors and speculation: that Ukrainian military intelligence -HUR- has the ability to intercept communications between senior members of Kremlin power, including top-ranking officials.
The statement has jumped to the main international media and set off alarm bells in Moscow, It comes at a time of maximum tension, with the war still raging and peace negotiations stalled. But what does this admission really mean? What consequences does it have for both parties?
What does this imply?
- Publicly recognized capacity: HUR admits to having technical and human resources to listen to conversations of Kremlin elites.
- Direct and intentional message: Budanov’s phrase fanoints as a conscious warning– shows that Ukraine does not depend only on military force, but also acts intelligently.
- Context of recent leaks: his statement follows information from Western media about alleged recordings of leaked internal Russian calls.
- offensive espionage, non-defensive: It is not just about surveillance to protect oneself, but about actively penetrating the Kremlin’s internal lines.
- New front of the war: adds an informational and psychological dimension to the conflict, where communication and filtration can have as much impact as a military offensive.
What it means for Russia and Ukraine
For kyiv, public admission Works like a muscle show: They not only fight with weapons, but also with intelligence, information and technology. If they can really intercept conversations of Russian senior commanders, they could anticipate orders, strategic changes or diplomatic movements from Moscow. That gives them a key tactical advantage.
Besides, The ad seeks to undermine the morale of the Russian elites: sow distrust, force them to reinforce their communications, to increase internal precautions – which complicates their operations.
For Russia, however, It represents a reputational and security vulnerability. If it is confirmed that their communications are no longer secure, they will have to reinforce protocols, change channels, mobilize resources. In the midst of war, these adjustments They can mean distractions or leaks of effectiveness.
On the other hand, by making this public confession, and even retaliation – both on the informational and military fronts. Revealing sensitive capabilities often intensifies tensions and provokes disproportionate responses.
Why Budanov said it now
The context explains it in part. In the last days some Western media have published recordings attributed to Kremlin officialsas an exchange between Russian advisor Yuri Ushakov and envoy Kirill Dmitriev. This dissemination placed Ukraine at the center of speculation: many suggested that HUR could be behind it.
Aware of the media attention and seeking to strengthen his position, Budanov adopted a clear communication strategy: recognize the spying capacity without directly confirming that this material has left their servers. This strategic ambiguity (neither affirm it nor deny it) serves to sow uncertainty in Moscow, without compromising operations or sources.
Furthermore, confession fulfills an internal function: send a message to the Ukrainian population and international allies. Ukraine remains active, with its own resources, reach and intelligence, beyond external military support.
However, and although it seems like a calculated move, it has its dangers. By so openly admitting interception capability, Ukraine could lose its operational advantage: Russians could strengthen your communicationschange passwords, migrate to secure channels, which would make espionage much more difficult.
There is also a risk of escalation: Moscow could take these words as a provocation, and react with new offensives, cyberattackscovert operations or disinformation campaigns. In an already charged conflict, any spark can ignite a storm.
And from an ethical and diplomatic point of view, confessing to active espionage hampers negotiation efforts: Russia will probably use this as an argument to harden its stance, accusing Ukraine of “illegal” or “immoral” methods.
