TADEAS: Po netu beha ovsem tohle, ale v tyhle scene se nevyznam, nevim, co si myslet...
💙💛 Regina Laska
@Sunnymica
Translated from German
Volcano Group: Nah, that wasn't us! ☝️
That's a gamechanger.
If the statement is genuine – and it's on Indymedia, so the right channel – then here's what we're seeing:
▸ The real Volcano Group from 2011 is explicitly distancing itself
▸ It says: "The texts and actions of recent years don't come from us"
▸ It reflects on the changed context since 2014 (Ukraine) – that infrastructure attacks can now become "part of a general destabilization"
▸ It criticizes that its name "is being used to legitimize, explain, or politically charge current attacks"What stands out:
The tone. It sounds exactly like in earlier texts: reflective, self-critical, politically nuanced. They position themselves against Putin and Trump. They explain why they've withdrawn. It has intellectual substance.
The key sentence:
"With Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014, the context fundamentally shifted."
That's an analysis no Russian troll would ever write.
Why only now?
They've stayed silent because they've seen that infrastructure sabotage since 2014 exists in a completely different context. That someone – presumably Russia – might have co-opted their methods and name to carry out destabilization.
And they didn't want to:
▸ Be part of it
▸ Legitimize it through their own actions
▸ Provide a stage for it
The problem:
Their silence is exactly what enabled what they wanted to prevent – someone else hijacked their name.
The uncomfortable implication:
If that's true, then the attacks from 2018, 2021, 2024, 2025, and now 2026 – so over a decade – weren't from them.
That would mean: The domestic intelligence service has been chasing a group for years that no longer existed in that form. And possibly classified Russian operations as "left-wing extremism."
That would be a failure on multiple levels.
The question remains: Can they substantiate that? Or is it just their claim against the authorities'?
And of course: This statement could theoretically be forged too. The question is just – who would have an interest in faking a disavowal?
That makes the false-flag theory more plausible, not less.
Dobrindt has a problem now.