Both described 2025 as a turning point, defined largely by the collapse of the long-standing myth of a “safe Russian rear.” According to them, Russian forces no longer feel secure, even far from the front.

“If earlier the occupier felt threatened only in Crimea or near Donetsk, today they flinch at every sound in the Moscow region or Volgograd. Atesh has become a truly all-Russian network,” one of them said.

The movement, he added, is no longer a loose group of sympathizers but a systemic force embedded across Russia’s military infrastructure.

...

Today, an underground movement agent is not necessarily a person with a rifle in the forest. It is a waiter who overhears officers’ conversations in a café; a railway worker who knows the exact schedule of military trains; a technician who can “accidentally” disable an expensive radar.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 36 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

A bit of strange editing of that “quote” (if you edit, is it a quote?), as “metastasize the military” doesn’t make much sense to me. Original quote reads just fine, not sure why they edited it.

We are no longer just a group of patriots, but a systemic force that has metastasized throughout the military machine of the Russian Federation. And next year, these metastases will make themselves felt.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I am going to take a wild guess here and say that in the language this is translated from the word for mestatasize as in "the process in which cancer spreads throughout the body" more naturally fits in usage as a verb that does something to a noun than in english where it more naturally fits as a verb that allows a noun to swallow and encompass another noun.

The headline is technically right, but where the awkwardness comes in I think is that mestatasize feels more natural in english to apply to a growing noun within the architecture of a larger body. In otherwords, it is much less natural to make the headline "Atash Metastasized The Russian Military" than "Atash Mestastasized Throughout The Russian Military". In english the latter example is still an unusual use of the word mestatasize but I think it is a good and very precise use of metaphor and totally support using it.

Yeah I agree with another commenter, either this is a bit of awkward translation or it is a bit of AI translation being stilted, but honestly if there is a time to forgive such things I would think war would be it. The message being conveyed is clearly good information, there is just a distorting filter being placed on it through the friction of translation.

[–] doo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yup, I cannot find the original article, but I think you're right. What's more is that in Ukrainian, metastasis is virtually never used in a verb form (you can buy it's awkward), so it's indeed caused by the author knowing it has a verb form in English, but being somewhat unfamiliar with its use.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I’m saying if you “metastasized Russia’s military” that means you’ve made the Russian military grow and spread. That’s something that benefits Russia.

If you “metastasized within the Russian military” that means Ukrainian resistance is spreading within the Russian military. This benefits Ukraine.

That one missing word completely changes things. Of course, I understand the difficulties involved in translation, but the actual quote is translated properly. The editing made it worse, not the initial translation.

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

I know this is what everyone says about everything these days, but I suspect it was summarized with AI and not proofread sufficiently.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think there's multiple languages at play here.

(If you translate a quote, is it a quote?)

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The actual quote in the article has no grammatical issues, only the edited headline quote (which I still struggle to call a quote) has issues.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was just meaning it's not a common turn of phrase in English and possibly the author isn't a native English speaker, so they're trying to make a Ukrainian idiom fit the headline when it doesn't.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

I’m saying the quote is correct in the article but it was edited to sound odd, and they still put quotes around it. It’s just strange to me. The verbatim quote is fine, so I don’t think it’s translation that can be blamed.