Talk:GRU (Russian Federation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I have never seen such a fuc... up article on such an important intelligence organization as GRU. Do yourself a favor - Translate http://ru.wikipedia.org, or https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU or other f.. horror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.5.131 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, was it, ... the participation of the GRU in the sinking of the "Kursk 141".
Hello respected admirals, officers, and, sailors. Closing the rescue hatch. From the outside of the side. Or, GRU combat swimmers? Or, the divers of the FSB? Further . Who can guess? What did the FSB officers foil the temporary anti-hydrogen catalysts? All the ends are shod with these bastards. Boyfriends of the US CIA. Well, a CIA agent who participated in the action they ... where to Deli?109.134.133.241 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs changes[edit]

It needs them badly. Common style of the article isn't neutrile and antirussian. There are alot of definatly antirussian sources like different defectors and others such peopels, there are alot of unprooven phrases from politicians, that looks more like populism, then well-weighted statements. This should be cleaned out. Even references list in the end begins with GRUs defectors and so on - I don't think this is correct, as it's not GRUs purpose. Oleg_Str

Rewrite sentence[edit]

Could someone rewrite the following sentence:

During its history, the GRU was always a subordinate to the NKVD, its successors (KGB, etc.), the GRU has at different times, made very spectacular recruits of foreign agents, and was the first Soviet intelligence service, to exploit the lax security of western companies, and began to steal S&T (Science and technology) though this later became a domain controlled by KGB, under line x, later Directorate T.

It's a long, run-on sentence and I can't make heads nor tails of it. Abigail 16:25, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

how's this:
During the entire period it operated, GRU was always subordinate to the NKVD and its successors (KGB, etc.). The GRU was particularly successful in recruiting foreign agents, and was the first Soviet intelligence service to exploit the lax security of western companies. GRU agents pioneered espionage targeted at gaining science and technology (S&T) material. This function later fell to the KGB, under its "line x" (later Directorate T).
-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:17, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename[edit]

Any objection to an article rename to the full name? To be more consistent with other Russian articles. -Joseph 04:24, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

The renaming is wrong. The abbreviation GRU is well known, the full name is not so. — Monedula 20:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Holy Similarities Batman![edit]

Was the symbol of the GRU spetsnaz later adapted into Batman's symbol? The two are pretty much identical. I scanned through Batman's article, and nothing of the sort was listed under "Costume."

Your title for this section made me laugh. First I thought they had nicked the Batman logo, but it's the other way around[citation needed]. The spanish version of this article has a similar logo. AFAIK, this logo is the real one. I think its supposed to represent a bird overlooking the world, not a bat.--81.105.251.160 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah my first impression of seeing that symbol was like: BATMAN. Lol, guess those of us living in the West have a pretty different POV on that bat-looking symbol. :P 24.80.236.14 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT emblem of GRU[edit]

The emblem pictured on this page is NOT that of GRU. Along the bottom is does in fact say, in Russian, "Military intelligence," but along the top the acronym is "VS RF." I'm not sure what "VS" means, but "RF" certainly means "Russian Federation" ("Rossiiskaia federatsiia" in Russian). In other words, this emblem might be that of a post-Soviet successor organization, but it is NOT that of the Soviet-era GRU. Terrasirradient 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This (see the second image) seems to imply that the logo (if not the GRU name) is still in current use. Lionfire 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct for the current GRU. VS RF is Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (perhaps better sense is Military Forces of the Russian Federation). Buckshot06 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of text[edit]

Vlad Fedorov deleted the following large portions of text:

During 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy several GRU officers were accused by Georgian authorities of preparations to commit sabotage and terrorist acts. GRU detachments from Chechnya were transferred to Lebanon independently on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon after 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict "to improve Russia’s image in the Arab world", according to Sergei Ivanov.[1] Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev was assassinated by two GRU officers. GRU officers are accused of creating criminal death squads[2]

Special services are making teams for extrajudicial punishment (Russian)] by Igor Korolkov, Novaya Gazeta, January 11, 2007. </ref> It was reported that GRU helped Saddam Hussein to hide his Weapons of mass destruction before US invasion of Iraq in 2003[3]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[4]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Moscow posts two Chechen platoons in S. Lebanon, one headed by an ex-rebel commander, "to improve Russia’s image in the Arab world" by DEBKAfile
  2. ^ Special services are making teams for extrajudicial punishment (Russian) by Igor Korolkov, Novaya Gazeta, January 11, 2007.
  3. ^ Saddam's WMDs and Russia -by David Dastych, Canada Free Press, February 28, 2006
  4. ^ Russia Hid Saddam's WMDs -by Ion Mihai Pacepa, Washington Times, October 2, 2003.

2003[edit]

2004[edit]

2005[edit]

2006[edit]

Biophys 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced text - again?![edit]

Someone just deleted again the text, ignoring that I provided six additional reliable references. He just said: "obvious anti-russian propaganda removed". This simply means: "I do not like it". Well, if you do not like it, please provide alternative good references that say: Russia did not help Saddam to hid his WMD. That would be just fine. But simply deleting well sourced text is vandalism. Of course this subject is controversial and may need a proper description of all "pro" and "contra" based on published sources. If this is the problem, I can create a separate article Russia and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction controversy. Any opinions? Can one suggest a better title?Biophys 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large scale deletions without consensus[edit]

At 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I placed a comment on the talk page of User_talk:Vlad_fedorov who has been conspicuous by

  • his absence from these pages
  • his consecutive deletions, without any prior discussion, of material provided by other editors

This is the exact quote of what I wrote on his user page:

"Wikipedia as a community has rules to prevent edit wars.
One of these is the 3RR rule.
If you wish to delete large passages of another editor's work without providing any references, it is more polite to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page FIRST.
If you do not, your excisions may be regarded as vandalism.
Please proceed immediately to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there before reverting this article again.
If you do not, you run the risk of being blocked from Wikipedia.
You may find that Wikipedia:Wikiquette provides some helpful guidance. Thank you for your anticipated compliance."

Within less than half an hour (and without any further discussion or comment) at 17:05, 8 April 2007 Vlad fedorov had expunged my comments using the following as his edit summary: "Personal offence removed"

I am posting my comments here because I have a strong suspicion that any further help I offer on Vlad fedorov's user pages will also be expunged.W. Frank 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stay out of this fight, Frank. Most of the sources are in Russian and it's doubtful that your protagonist will be able to learn anything about Wikipedia's procedures - take a look at this if you don't believe what you'll be getting into:
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaimhreadhan (talk • contribs) 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Could you be more accurate and tell me what have I violated here. I left some comments earlier on this page and GRU article page history shows all my explanations. I have edited right not a case of Alexey Galkin "confessions" rceived under torture. Other would follow shortly. Vlad fedorov 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a half-truth. The first thing you did was chop out anything you regard as "anti-Putin" AGAIN. Then you added a lot of stuff about Chechen's torturing someone. I think the place for that is in a separate article (perhaps referenced from the GRU article if you think it relevant).
What you violate is WP policies. You keep trying to censor people. This is not very effective on Wikipedia since the edit histories will always reveal what you have been up to.
I read what happened when Frank tried to respond to you in a helpful and polite way on your user talk page at User_talk:Vlad_fedorov. Instead of reading the Wikipedia articles he helpfully pointed you towards, you "shot the messenger" and simply deleted his post!
I realise it's not very pleasant having someone suggest that you read Wikipedia:Wikiquette for some helpful guidance but I really do think you should. And if you really can't understand AFTER READING THAT ARTICLE why people are fed up with you simply deleting their work without any discussion, then I personally think you should leave the English version of Wikipedia alone and go and annoy people somewhere else.
Why you constantly try to abuse me? What I have written about Alexey Galkin was taken word in word from the most Anti-Putin newspaper in Russia Novaya Gazeta. One of the most known of its journalists is the Anna Politkovskaya. So your ignorance of the subject is fantastic. Instead of thanking me about publishing new sources on the subject, I receive personal attack from vindicating me of "violations" of WP policy. Which point have I violated? Cite me citation and show me the reference. It is you who wants a rubbish to be published about Russia. Moreover, you are person who doesn't even knows Russian and can't study Russian sources.Vlad fedorov 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made allowances previously for the fact that your native language is not English, but you are going to have to stop your whining and name calling. First you label Frank as uncivil and now you are accusing me of abuse. Just "close your mouth and open your ears" go and actually read and study Wikipedia:Wikiquette BEFORE YOU POST AGAIN. We have a phrase in English: "the pot calling the kettle black" so now I'm going to follow the advice above and take a deep long breath......Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I asked you to cite me what rules, policies or guidelines of Wikipedia I have violated. Instead of saying something substantial, you just continue you personal attacks on me. Please read the following in Wikiquette which you cited: "Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity". All I see from you currently is also non-complying with Wikiquette. So look at the mirror, before writing about me. You already talk on my personality and not about GRU and you are already in violation of the rule "Argue facts, not personalities". So please, "close your mouth and open your ears" yourself.Vlad fedorov 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wished to contact you in a non-public way since I know that you're not a native user of English but you're a difficult man to contact: User_talk:Vlad_fedorov#Contact. I would be very much obliged if you could use the preview facility when you have thought of some changes and then try and group the tiny (NOT the huge) changes together in one batch since it is getting very difficult to follow (and, if necessary) correct and/or enhance the drift of your multiple consecutive 'machine-gun' edits - especially when many continue to be undiscussed here first...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In connection. With changes in the composition of the College of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command. Again relevant the lema. The sudden death of the head of the main directorate of the GRU / GU Russian Federation. In this context . We, Wikipedia User's, need to express. In defense. Liquidations, executions, secret executions. Elderly people who saw the views that took part in the battles. The generals (and, admirals). Those who have vowed to risk their lives in the name of the motherland if necessary. It couldn't and cannot produce the results we want. GRU / GU has existed for over 60 years. None of the directors. Has been considered a traitor of interests ... Besides. The problem is that it is difficult or impossible to effectively manage an "inverted pyramid". Regiments of the colonels. With very special training. You are the ones. The "push" and "nudge" Mr. Director. To not always correct, inconsiderate, hasty decisions. This or that task ... Yes. In that regard. Interesting is ...GU Simpatisant (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case of Galkin[edit]

First, this is article about GRU, not about Galkin. Of course, one can create a separate article about him and refer to this article here. Second, this text is based mostly on two articles from Novaya Gazeta, which is not accessible. According to WP:SOURCE#Language, "when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.". Please provide the original Russian text here or anywhere. Otherwise, this does not satisfy WP:SOURCE.Biophys 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to make articles about Alexei Galkin, Achemez Gochiyaev and some other people involved in the Russian apartment bombings controversy. But we need sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE. Biophys 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the links which were already seen in the source code of the page. Now you try them.Vlad fedorov 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad provided the sources, and they seem to be O'K except incorrect translation of some titles. So, I have created new article Aleksey Galkin and transfered all materials about him there. Now, his case should be only briefly mentioned in this article.Biophys 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam's WMD controversy[edit]

This is article about GRU. The claims about Saddam's WMD are controversial and only remotely related to this organization. One could tell only one or two phrases in this article, as it was in the initial version. But right now Vlad included a lot of text about it. So, it would be better to make a separate article about this controversy, and remove it from here. I will try to make this right now, since I might be blocked soon.Biophys 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Well, this might be yet another article for AfD. Still, let's try. If Wikipedia community decides to remove it - I do not care much. One thing for sure: a long story about Saddam's WMD does not belong here.Biophys 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update. If article Russia and Saddam WMD allegations will survive AfD, this segment of text should be only briefly mentioned, just as the description of Aleksey Galkin case. This material is not so important. Biophys 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research by Biophys[edit]

Biophys inserted information about Operation Sarindar by Pacepa. BUT PACEPA NOWHERE CLAIMS THAT OPERATION SARINDAR WAS PERFORMED BY GRU. User Biophys has made original research which should be deleted from the article immediately. Vlad fedorov 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basayev[edit]

The GRU played a considerable role in Russia’s attempts to exploit the 1992-1993 war between Abkhazia and Georgia. While Moscow officially supported Georgia in the conflict, imposing sanctions against Abkhazia, the Minister of Defense, Pavel Grachev, provided considerable military support to the Abkhaz side, apparently on his own personal initiative. Anton Surikov, who as a GRU officer was directly involved in these events (many consider that he was Basaev’s kurator in Abkhazia, though he himself denies it), later stated: “That [Pavel Grachev] carried out in Abkhazia his own personal policy is true. And this, from the point of view of Russia’s interests, was a very useful and correct policy. Without Grachev Abkhazia would not have stood. He personally was the true organizer of the defense of the republic.” The Russian military, under Grachev’s command, at the very least allowed the Confederation of the Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus to send several volunteer battalions to back the Abkhaz, which proved key to the Abkhaz victory in 1993; most probably, these battalions also received logistical support and training from the GRU. Information has persistently surfaced that the Caucasian battalions’ most talented commander, Shamil Basaev, who was named Deputy Minister of Defense of Abkhazia, was trained at a GRU base near Volgograd in 1992. The GRU also reportedly deployed its own Spetznaz unit, under Surikov’s command, tasked, between August and October 1992, with eliminating Georgian field commanders. [1]Biophys 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes-yes! "" The GRU played a considerable role in Russia’s attempts to exploit the 1992-1993 was between Abkhazia and Georgia. "

  It is a feller. For this contractor. To pull out of the Wikipedia discussion field. In the hope . There are those who have forgiven the $ 5,000,000,000. Now wait patiently for a Entscheidung by the General Procurator. The other $ 20,000,000,000. In the same hope: to get peace and reconciliation with the GRU RF. Forgiveness has countless human lives. Everything has been around! Also . The favorable times are here. To ... complete something. Well. Where's the friends and relatives? Of 120 Russian sailors and naval officers killed. From "Kursk 141". No one stayed alive or what?33Habujin (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junk article[edit]

The article is piece of junk. No organization structure, no historical timeline (only biased events, some does have nothing in common with GRU), no valid reference materials.

I think it should be completely reworked.

Thebiggestmac (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sulim Yamadayev[edit]

Sulim Yamadayev, who is apparently deceased, is mentioned in the present tense. The article also mentions the disbanded Vostok and Zapad battalions in the present tense. I'm not sure how to change this, but it needs to be changed for consistency. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sergun[edit]

New Chief of the Russian Military Intelligence... MAKS123 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adamska Ocelot???[edit]

Really? As in Revolver Ocelot from MGS? Can he really be counted as a Historical Figure? He's a Video Game character!

[edit]

What was the logo of gru in Soviet era? This image below rather won't be suitable in the soviet/stalinism especially era, especially because of tsar symbols... File:GRU emblem.svg 2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone move it to GRU[edit]

It's beyond ridicalous, also see KGB or NKVD etc. --Niemti (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GRU vs. KGB vs. NKVD[edit]

"The GRU was well known in the Soviet government for its fierce independence from the rival 'internal intelligence organizations', such as NKVD and KGB."

I have looked through multiple pages and I can't find one that gives a SIMPLE (2-4 sentences) explanation of the relationship between GRU, KGB and NKVD beyond a simple statement like this. Reading entries on the Soviet Union on Wikipedia, I see all three referred to as the primary intelligence gathering agency and secret police force.

I know there is probably overlap between time periods when they all existed but I found the page on chronology of Soviet intelligence more confusing than enlightening. Espionage is such a hot topic for amateur scholars, there must be someone who can briefly outline the difference between GRU and these other two agencies and explain the history of their rivalry. That would be worth an entire article of its own. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Come on guys, you know perfectly well that the full title is incomprehensible in English. We have a duty to communicate clearly in our language. GRU is what the title ought to be. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/11/17/6451.shtml
    Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Spetsnaz GRU[edit]

there isn't enough info/structure about the Spetsnaz GRU to warrant a separate article. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Main Intelligence Directorate (Russia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRU building[edit]

Please provide WP:RS telling that buildings on the image are indeed GRU headquarters. In addition, this looks like a TV screenshot. Is it? If so, this is a copyright violation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Некоторые юные участники Википедия пишут и пишут о секретной работе Военной Разведки России . И, здесь важны мотивы . Зачем ? Почему ? Для чего ? Ну, естественно, чтобы помочь ! Улутшить ! И страничьку Википедия о Военной Разведки России . И, работу доблестных защитников Отчизны. Честно разделить оплату и почести за успешные ОП . Часть ,и, весомая часть , пологается их друзьям и компаньёнам из дружественных Организаций . Ведь наши офицеры нехотят всё себе заграбастать, а ? <IP for Wikipedia .ru block . Sorry>Pro Rolex2 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the young participants of Wikipedia write and write about the secret work of the Russian military intelligence. And there are important reasons. What for ? Why? For what ? Well, of course, to help! To improve! And page Wikipedia about Russian military intelligence. And the work of the valiant defenders of the Motherland. Honestly split payment and honors for successful OP. Part, and a significant part of, relies on their friends and on friendly organizations. After all, our officers reluctantly everything yourself hog" --<IP for Wikipedia .ru block . Sorry>Pro Rolex2 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe lost in translation, but I don't know what you are talking about. The picture looks like the same building on google street view, but google images are copyright and someone added that picture as free license to be used for wikipedia. here's a link to a (copyright) internet image --IP_commenter (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't know that it's free even if the uploader has claimed it as their own. Thousands upon thousands of copyrighted images are uploaded by users to Wiki Commons and claimed as their own. I've found the originals of enough photos used in articles on Wikipedia from there that have simply been cropped slightly and passed off as 'own work'. The uploader -(here - is highly dubious. Of the 3 images s/he has ever uploaded (all in a short spate in 2013), one was quickly deleted as a copyright violation. If there was exif data, I might have been more predisposed to believe that it was genuinely that person's work. Wiki Commons has to look out for WP:COPYVIO. As editors here, we have to be even more vigilant as we are providing a venue to accommodate a high risk copyvio photo at Wikipedia's risk (i.e., by posting it, we are validating it as being a genuinely free image). That's not a risk we are at liberty to take. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: You have an issue: in your edit summary you seem to claim that the image is original research yet here you seem to claim that the image is a copyright violation and this contradicts your claim that it is original research i.e. it cannot be original and copied at the same time. Unless you are the legal copyright holder (or authorized representative, (or have rights as licensee)) YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE IMAGE REMOVED. --IP_commenter (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GRU building

Many Wikipedia languages other than English use this image. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Main Intelligence Directorate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dissolved in 1992 or not? Zombie spy agency? The living dead?[edit]

"In May 1992 the GRU was dissolved and became part of the new Russian Ministry of Defense. In 2006 the GRU moved to a new Headquarters complex at Khoroshovskoye Shosse.." These consecutive sentences seem to say that it was dissolved in May 1992, meaning that it no longer existed but that its existence continued 14 years later. Should it say that in May 1992 it was transferred fro one supervising authority to another, or should it say that it was dissolved in May 1992 and then it was restored to function at some later date? Perhaps we could just leave out "was dissolved and" so that the article says ""In May 1992 the GRU became part of the new Russian Ministry of Defense." Edison (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section needed on 2016 US election[edit]

Needs complete section. Wikipietime (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposal of the President of Russia[edit]

The President has reorganized military intelligence. Just as with the KGB already happened. Since he has encountered some incompronesance ... Everyone has his arguments ...Simpoatisant1234567890987654323456 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Main Intelligence Directorate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet vs. Russian[edit]

The GRU that this article is about only came into existence in 1992, as part of the Russian Federation. If we're going to be including information on individuals like Klaus Fuchs, then I think either the primary infobox needs to be changed, or we need a new article making a distinction between the Soviet and post-Soviet organizations, akin to the SVR vs. the KGB. PvOberstein (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Is there an official way to pronounce "GRU"? I always thought each letter was pronounced individually (mostly based on TV), like FBI, but recently other people have argued with me that it's more like SEAL or SOCOM. Whatever the case, if there is a definitive correct way to pronounce it, then it would be helpful to have it written phonetically in the introduction of the article. --Trifler (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous abriviature.

Some of GU Colonel's feel kind of hunted. Even though . User's Wikipedia.org. That is sufficiently cultured. Highly intelligent content of internet users. All of them . Often and and long. In the academic, professorial Ciber society. Wikipedia online incyclopedia. Sensitive natures. No less diplomatic. As one of the most diplomatic diplomats. According to the M.G.I.M.O .. For Wikipedia user's. Administrators and Authors. Not required - an order, a decree, an order to be given. To get them to write a new topic. Develop or improve an old, forgotten topic. Expression of interest is sufficient. Public interest. Or ... administrative interests. State administration. Even more ! Civilian political leadership of the Russian Federation. First . Mr. President of the Russian Federation. Wladimir Putin. And also . Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Lavrov. And ... the Minister of Health. Mr. Michail Albertowitsch Muraschko. Shown a real interest. How can it be reduced ?! Political influence. Political force! At home and abroad. On the part of a Sicret Agenci, (state, military) administration. Under the pseudonym GU Russia. Military command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Defense Minister. College of the Headquarters of the High Command. Manifested. All natural. Economic interest. To add. Foreign exchange holdings, savings, avuars. From "the state in the state in the state" (GU Russia). On the budget of the Ministry of Defense of Russia. 

The knowledgeable user of Wikipedia. The employment contract with GU was not signed. Should she request a written order? To help . Contribute. Of course not! This is a matter of conscience, honor, likes and dislikes. From Wikipedia users. Who has signed a general contractor? Yes, perhaps .
Colonel! We are loyal to the Secretary of Defense and the President. And you ?195.244.164.66 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added new source[edit]

Infinitepeace (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pension Fund of the Officers of the Headquarters of the Supreme Command. Is it true? That the colonels of the GU / GRU are officers of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command. User3456789876 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to GRU (Russian Federation) and GRU (Soviet Union). (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Both of the current titles are pretty messy and don't really fit with the article titles policy. With regard to this page, it's title is just a collection of essentially meaningless letters that definitely don't satisfy common name. Meanwhile, "Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)" is equivalent to if Federal Protective Service (Russia) was instead titled "Federal Protective Service (FSO)", meaning it isn't made clear by the title that that GRU article is only about the Soviet GRU. Thanks in advance, RadiculousJ (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems.
But, there is also good news.
Colonel Victor Boat released from US prison.
Kalabaha1969 Zweite (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRU (Russian Federation) → GRU – no page should redirect to the page with the same name with brackets. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. curprev 21:15, 2 April 2023‎ UtherSRG talk contribs‎ 85 bytes +85‎ UtherSRG moved page GRU to GRU (Russian Federation): Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): Requested by 162 etc. at WP:RM/TR: Moved without discussion; GRU (Russian Federation) is the consensus title per a 2021 RM thank Tag: New redirect
GRU (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GRU (Russian Federation), Russian intelligence service
GRU (Soviet Union), Soviet military intelligence service
Oppose. This agency’s real name isn’t even GRU, while the Soviet one’s was.  —Michael Z. 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous consensus. As mentioned above, the WP:COMMONNAME for this article's subject may not even be "GRU". Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:162 etc. (both have long-term significance), consensus, the 2021 RM and the lack of any argument for the move. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Razvedupr" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Razvedupr has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Razvedupr until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New dimension. Along with the renaming to GU. Changes in... features. Management and Control in the Army and Navy. Management, not discovery, of information - as a priority. The officers of the GU at the staff of the Supreme High Command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are no longer required. To hide or to cover / shield oneself intensively. On the contrary, to act / administer / control openly. (If not already public.) That should add more respect and recognition.
GU , this is GOV. - Administration !
Not a military department for scouting info.Steel1943 Zweite (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GRU_(Russian_Federation)&oldid=1217803548"