Sold his sole for $$$. May he rot in hell or russia.

No idea if true, but it's funny as hell either way.

🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦

During negotiations in Abu Dhabi, when the Russians started talking about territories, Budanov would address the speaker and ask:

“Excuse me, could you remind me of your last name?”

Then he would write something down in his notebook.

After that, the Russians stopped… pic.twitter.com/c4O5VwSUDJ

— WW3finalboss (@WW3finalboss1) January 27, 2026

Just so we are clear on what is happening here. It is the distributors that are selling Ubiquiti equipment to Russia not Ubiquiti itself. Almost all tech hardware can be purchased this way not just theirs. In addition Ubiquiti geofences their firmware to not download inside of Russian territories as well.

Fair disclosure I am a heavy user of their equipment which is fairly cheap and pretty awesome. This is only more advertising about what their hardware is capable of which is great for Ubiquiti and validates my usage of their hardware in my tech stack.

Russia should pay the price for their intransigence but we need to be careful who we villainize. This article is mainly clickbait by a short selling fund.

aginresearch said:

---

Just so we are clear on what is happening here. It is the distributors that are selling Ubiquiti equipment to Russia not Ubiquiti itself. Almost all tech hardware can be purchased this way not just theirs. In addition Ubiquiti geofences their firmware to not download inside of Russian territories as well.

Fair disclosure I am a heavy user of their equipment which is fairly cheap and pretty awesome. This is only more advertising about what their hardware is capable of which is great for Ubiquiti and validates my usage of their hardware in my tech stack.

Russia should pay the price for their intransigence but we need to be careful who we villainize. This article is mainly clickbait by a short selling fund.

---

I actually work for another manufacturer in the space. I do have to disagree with you on that this is just the "distributors." Ubiquiti is a smaller player in the cybersecurity space. They made a start in the home usage and have been moving into the SMB market for the past few years. They have very inexpensive AP's that seem to work fairly well, but their firewalls are crap. This is primarily due to their dependance on third party threat data among other things.

That said, there is no way in the world that this company was not aware that "someone" was purchasing that quantity and they were not asking questions. Even Palo Alto, Fortinet, Cisco, SonicWall or any other major player in the space would be alerted on purchases of this size. Hence the "We didn't know" will not work in this case.

We have to go through annual training on exports. There would be so many red flags on this one, IF TRUE, that they will struggle to get past any level of scrutiny.

I did share that article with some friends from several other manufacturers as well and they all seem to agree that if this is found to be true, they are toast.

The article says distributor almost every time. The article never directly says Ubiquiti. You know why? Because if it did it would be false and then the publisher would be liable.

They've found Raspberry PI 4 in Russian drones. Is the Raspberry Pi foundation selling equipment to Russia?

I bet you'd find some of your own company's equipment somewhere in the Russian military network. Doesn't mean you sold it to them.

For export controlled material, you are still supposed to have some level of monitoring in place. It would probably come down to how well they are monitoring and how much did they know. I have to take training on that stuff even though I am not in sales or marketing.

Quote:

---

AI Summary
Yes, companies are generally liable for violations committed by their distributors, as U.S. export control regulations often impose strict liability and do not allow for the delegation of compliance responsibilities. If a distributor sells to a restricted party or prohibited destination, the original exporter can face severe penalties, including fines and suspension of export privileges.
Key aspects of liability for distributor actions include:

• Strict Liability & Knowledge: Exporters are responsible for ensuring compliance, even if they were unaware of the violation. Liability arises if the company knew or "should have known" that items were intended for a prohibited destination or end-user.
• Active Monitoring Required: Companies must have a robust compliance program that includes screening distributors and preventing diversion.
• Re-export Risks: Even if a sale is legal to the distributor, the exporter remains responsible if the distributor subsequently re-exports the goods to a prohibited entity.
• Contractual Protections: While you cannot contractually transfer legal liability to a distributor, you should include strict export compliance clauses, requiring them to follow U.S. regulations.

To mitigate risks, companies should perform due diligence on distributors, provide training, and conduct regular audits.

---

aginresearch said:

---

The article says distributor almost every time. The article never directly says Ubiquiti. You know why? Because if it did it would be false and then the publisher would be liable.

They've found Raspberry PI 4 in Russian drones. Is the Raspberry Pi foundation selling equipment to Russia?

I bet you'd find some of your own company's equipment somewhere in the Russian military network. Doesn't mean you sold it to them.

---

As others have noted, you have to be aware of who your distributors are selling to, and they have to be aware of and follow export restrictions. Effort must be made, and willful ignorance is not a defense. It seems their distributors were directly colluding or willing to directly collude to evade export restrictions by shipping to third parties or unrestricted countries with the intention of re-export.

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

For export controlled material, you are still supposed to have some level of monitoring in place. It would probably come down to how well they are monitoring and how much did they know. I have to take training on that stuff even though I am not in sales or marketing.

Quote:

---

AI Summary
Yes, companies are generally liable for violations committed by their distributors, as U.S. export control regulations often impose strict liability and do not allow for the delegation of compliance responsibilities. If a distributor sells to a restricted party or prohibited destination, the original exporter can face severe penalties, including fines and suspension of export privileges.
Key aspects of liability for distributor actions include:

• Strict Liability & Knowledge: Exporters are responsible for ensuring compliance, even if they were unaware of the violation. Liability arises if the company knew or "should have known" that items were intended for a prohibited destination or end-user.
• Active Monitoring Required: Companies must have a robust compliance program that includes screening distributors and preventing diversion.
• Re-export Risks: Even if a sale is legal to the distributor, the exporter remains responsible if the distributor subsequently re-exports the goods to a prohibited entity.
• Contractual Protections: While you cannot contractually transfer legal liability to a distributor, you should include strict export compliance clauses, requiring them to follow U.S. regulations.

To mitigate risks, companies should perform due diligence on distributors, provide training, and conduct regular audits.

---

---

What is the ECCN of these Ubiquiti devices? That will tell you how they're controlled. Could be they're just EAR99 which is free to be sold to pretty much anyone as far as I know,

And hell, it could be that they're being sold in the US to countries other than Russia and then that company resells it. It's illegal for the US entity to sell it in the first place if it knows that's happening, though...


ETA: Looks like even EAR99 is no bueno to Russia/Belarus...

From what is linked, that's basically what's happening. Ubiquiti's distributors are selling to companies and Russian agents in permissible countries knowing full well the equipment will be re-exported to Russia. Seems like they contacted some posing as Russian buyers and the distributor was willing to help facilitate getting around the export restrictions. Ubiquiti is seemingly blissfully unaware because they're not implementing any kind of compliance tracking program, according to the reporting.

Seems like Ubiquiti is not the only one blissfully unaware:

Quote:

---

However, in principle, there's really little reason for a company like Cisco to do anything about these sales because they are initially appear to be legitimate deals with partners outside sanctioned nations. What these Russian firms are doing is a bit like a minor paying an adult to buy alcohol for them. As long as the cashier doesn't know or have reason to suspect it's for a minor, they have no reason to deny the sale.

---

https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/15/grey_market_sellers_defeat_sanctions/

We need to stop lying to ourselves about these sanctions and their efficacy. At a certain point goods are fungible just like money. If we want to stop the Russians we need to apply more direct pressure. We've had almost 4 years to increase our flow of weaponry and lift restrictions on their usage by the Ukrainians. Instead we have slow played our support.

My point is that Hunterbrook is alleging that the owner of Ubiquiti is directly supporting the Russian war effort. That is patently false. They are alleging the company is directly supporting the war effort. That is patently false. Their entire motive is to short their stock through Hunterbrook Capital.

Now you can point to lax regulation of their distributors and that is a valid criticism. I think Ubiquiti should under take efforts to reign in their distributors. If they have violated export control laws then they should be fined appropriately. However, I bet you'd open a hornet's nest in the tech industry doing that as seen above.I'd bet on a slap on the wrist and then nothing else happens to Ubiquiti.

aginresearch said:

---

Seems like Ubiquiti is not the only one blissfully unaware:

Quote:

---

However, in principle, there's really little reason for a company like Cisco to do anything about these sales because they are initially appear to be legitimate deals with partners outside sanctioned nations. What these Russian firms are doing is a bit like a minor paying an adult to buy alcohol for them. As long as the cashier doesn't know or have reason to suspect it's for a minor, they have no reason to deny the sale.

---

https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/15/grey_market_sellers_defeat_sanctions/

We need to stop lying to ourselves about these sanctions and their efficacy. At a certain point goods are fungible just like money. If we want to stop the Russians we need to apply more direct pressure. We've had almost 4 years to increase our flow of weaponry and lift restrictions on their usage by the Ukrainians. Instead we have slow played our support.

My point is that Hunterbrook is alleging that the owner of Ubiquiti is directly supporting the Russian war effort. That is patently false. They are alleging the company is directly supporting the war effort. That is patently false. Their entire motive is to short their stock through Hunterbrook Capital.

Now you can point to lax regulation of their distributors and that is a valid criticism. I think Ubiquiti should under take efforts to reign in their distributors. If they have violated export control laws then they should be fined appropriately. However, I bet you'd open a hornet's nest in the tech industry doing that as seen above.I'd bet on a slap on the wrist and then nothing else happens to Ubiquiti.

---

I would agree with this. The clickbait of it is they are directly knowingly allowing this to be sold. I am not sure there is any evidence of it based on what I saw. I am not sure how much a boon to revenue the parent company is seeing because of this as well. It will depend on compliance program, knowledge of issue. and partly if the govt wants to make an example of them unfortunately.

The growing impact of drones on Putin's War.

"Ukraine says drones now account for more than 80% of enemy targets destroyed as the country's fight against Russia's invasion approaches the five-year mark, with most of the drones manufactured locally.
Ukrainian forces recorded 819,737 video-confirmed drone hits in 2025, the Ministry of Defense said on Monday, at an event to award the most effective drone units. Almost a third of the drone strikes targeted enemy personnel, according to data tied to the armed forces' internal bonus system that awards points for confirmed hits."

DRONES

A Ukrainian unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) engages a Russian MT-LB troop carrier that happened upon their location.

The Ukrainians were (reportedly) testing their bot close to the forward line when it encountered the Russian vehicle. pic.twitter.com/DQ7rmhWwi6

— FUNKER530 (@Funker530) November 29, 2025

Europe stepping up sanctions enforcement against Russia's shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea. Now need the same from southern European countries for similar action in the Med.

"Fourteen European countries have issued a joint statement warning Russia that its shadow fleet tankers will no longer be able to operate freely in the Baltic Sea.
Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom signed the document.
The statement says that, from now on, tankers that change flags, turn off transponders, or lack the necessary documents will be considered stateless vessels."

FLEET

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

For export controlled material, you are still supposed to have some level of monitoring in place. It would probably come down to how well they are monitoring and how much did they know. I have to take training on that stuff even though I am not in sales or marketing.

Quote:

---

AI Summary
Yes, companies are generally liable for violations committed by their distributors, as U.S. export control regulations often impose strict liability and do not allow for the delegation of compliance responsibilities. If a distributor sells to a restricted party or prohibited destination, the original exporter can face severe penalties, including fines and suspension of export privileges.
Key aspects of liability for distributor actions include:

• Strict Liability & Knowledge: Exporters are responsible for ensuring compliance, even if they were unaware of the violation. Liability arises if the company knew or "should have known" that items were intended for a prohibited destination or end-user.
• Active Monitoring Required: Companies must have a robust compliance program that includes screening distributors and preventing diversion.
• Re-export Risks: Even if a sale is legal to the distributor, the exporter remains responsible if the distributor subsequently re-exports the goods to a prohibited entity.
• Contractual Protections: While you cannot contractually transfer legal liability to a distributor, you should include strict export compliance clauses, requiring them to follow U.S. regulations.

To mitigate risks, companies should perform due diligence on distributors, provide training, and conduct regular audits.

---

---

the vast majority of OEMs will have their sub-contractors and distributors sign a form which states all parties will abide by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations.

On the other hand, strict liability is usually reserved to the Exporter of Record.

Sorry if this has already been posted:


$1 billion worth of Russian aircraft destroyed by drones

And Putin is responsible for every single one of them on both sides.

"A new report warns that the number of soldiers killed, injured or missing on both sides of Russia's war on Ukraine could hit 2 million by the spring, with Russia suffering the largest number of troop deaths recorded for any major power in any conflict since World War II."

CASUALTIES

Dozen orcs in one gathering.

Minus 12 russian fascists. pic.twitter.com/yln1u5rd0G

— ✙ Albina Fella ✙ 🇺🇦🇬🇧🇫🇷🇸🇪🇩🇰🇫🇮🇩🇪🇮🇩 (@albafella1) January 28, 2026

I have a hard time taking joy in these guys getting unalived considering most of their are conscripts given little other choice.

MaxPower said:

---

I have a hard time taking joy in these guys getting unalived considering most of their are conscripts given little other choice.

---

I understand what your saying. Its tragic all the way around but I have to go with the guys defending their freedom, who also happens to be the David in face of the tyrannical Goliath.

If you read Gulag Archipelago you would be shocked how few kgb/gestapo was required to arrest dissidents, russians are just too weak or happy enough with whatever they are told to do or be.

Quote:

---

Russian Su-34 fighter-bomber was reportedly shot down over Black Sea

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2026/28-january-19-russian-su34-fighterbomber-was-reportedly-shot

MaxPower said:

---

I have a hard time taking joy in these guys getting unalived considering most of their are conscripts given little other choice.

---

I think about that, too.

Then I think about the people killed, the women raped, the towns destroyed, and the unfortunate few POWs who get sent to horrifying Russian prisons like Black Dolphin.

Perhaps Russians should consider rising up instead of invading Ukraine.

Russian invaders are still volunteers.

Yeah something like a Rasberry Pi may be found in a drone…..but it would be a novelty.

Even so, any US items found in equipments/weapon's collected from Ukraine will help to better define supply chains. There is a difference in finding a Rasberry Pi in a drone vs finding Raspberry Pi's a number of times and in different artifacts form. These things are looked at and no matter how one wants to defend it, try to persuade with "We didn't know" will not fly at some point.

Supply chains are easily figured out and when there are items that are in violation really stand out like a sore thumb.

aginresearch said:

---

The article says distributor almost every time. The article never directly says Ubiquiti. You know why? Because if it did it would be false and then the publisher would be liable.

They've found Raspberry PI 4 in Russian drones. Is the Raspberry Pi foundation selling equipment to Russia?

I bet you'd find some of your own company's equipment somewhere in the Russian military network. Doesn't mean you sold it to them.

---

You keep posting like Ubiquiti has no responsibility here because its distributors are the ones making illegal sales, but that doesn't make it true. Ubiquiti's compliance obligations involve screening its distributors for proper EAR adherence. They are supposed to be reviewing their policies, practices, transactions, and customer lists and ensuring they are only partnering with distributors who are compliant and abide by export controls. Making no attempt to identify a shady distributor who is making illegal resales or re-exports is no different than making no attempt to identify a shady end user illegally using your product. There is no difference between, "You knew what they were doing," and, "You could have known what they were doing but didn't bother to check," as far as EAR is concerned.

In this case, Ubiquiti does not seem to be doing their due diligence with their distributors, and not knowing who their distributors were selling to or how their products were being re-exported is not an excuse because they didn't bother to ask and verify. Just because Ubiquiti wasn't a part of the sale does not absolve them of responsibility and liability.

MaxPower said:

---

I have a hard time taking joy in these guys getting unalived considering most of their are conscripts given little other choice.

---

The vast majority of Russians fighting in Ukraine are either volunteers enticed by generous signing bonuses or career soldiers. That said, the Russian Army is not above strongarming conscripts into signing contracts to become deployable professional soldiers if needed.

"Under Russian law, newly conscripted recruits may not be sent to the combat zone in Ukraine to fight. Tsimlyanskiy repeated that commitment on Tuesday, saying a fresh conscript would "not be deployed to the new territories."

He said that once soldiers finished their 12 months of obligatory service, they would be released to civilian life.

Top Russian army brass, needing soldiers to refill depleted units, in the past, have got around the rule using threats and trickery to convince Russian army conscripts to volunteer for wartime service."

CONSCRIPTION

Ag with kids said:

---

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

For export controlled material, you are still supposed to have some level of monitoring in place. It would probably come down to how well they are monitoring and how much did they know. I have to take training on that stuff even though I am not in sales or marketing.

Quote:

---

AI Summary
Yes, companies are generally liable for violations committed by their distributors, as U.S. export control regulations often impose strict liability and do not allow for the delegation of compliance responsibilities. If a distributor sells to a restricted party or prohibited destination, the original exporter can face severe penalties, including fines and suspension of export privileges.
Key aspects of liability for distributor actions include:

• Strict Liability & Knowledge: Exporters are responsible for ensuring compliance, even if they were unaware of the violation. Liability arises if the company knew or "should have known" that items were intended for a prohibited destination or end-user.
• Active Monitoring Required: Companies must have a robust compliance program that includes screening distributors and preventing diversion.
• Re-export Risks: Even if a sale is legal to the distributor, the exporter remains responsible if the distributor subsequently re-exports the goods to a prohibited entity.
• Contractual Protections: While you cannot contractually transfer legal liability to a distributor, you should include strict export compliance clauses, requiring them to follow U.S. regulations.

To mitigate risks, companies should perform due diligence on distributors, provide training, and conduct regular audits.

---

---

What is the ECCN of these Ubiquiti devices? That will tell you how they're controlled. Could be they're just EAR99 which is free to be sold to pretty much anyone as far as I know,

And hell, it could be that they're being sold in the US to countries other than Russia and then that company resells it. It's illegal for the US entity to sell it in the first place if it knows that's happening, though...


ETA: Looks like even EAR99 is no bueno to Russia/Belarus...

---

Correct- just because an article is EAR99 there are still TEN General Prohibitions of the Export Administration Regulations which limit their export

not to mention denied parties lists, sanctions, OFAC embargoes. and the ITAR 126.1 countries for some shipments.

you still have to analyze the CCL Commerce Country Chart and determine where the "X" is in the box even for some EAR99 items.

God bless the gallant pilot willing to fly an antiquated warplane in harm's way to defend his country.

"A camera mounted on the wingtip of a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 Frogfoot close air support jet recorded the dramatic demise of the aircraft, after it was reportedly struck by a Russian long-range air-to-air missile."

VIDEO

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aginresearch said:

---

The article says distributor almost every time. The article never directly says Ubiquiti. You know why? Because if it did it would be false and then the publisher would be liable.

They've found Raspberry PI 4 in Russian drones. Is the Raspberry Pi foundation selling equipment to Russia?

I bet you'd find some of your own company's equipment somewhere in the Russian military network. Doesn't mean you sold it to them.

---

You keep posting like Ubiquiti has no responsibility here because its distributors are the ones making illegal sales, but that doesn't make it true. Ubiquiti's compliance obligations involve screening its distributors for proper EAR adherence. They are supposed to be reviewing their policies, practices, transactions, and customer lists and ensuring they are only partnering with distributors who are compliant and abide by export controls. Making no attempt to identify a shady distributor who is making illegal resales or re-exports is no different than making no attempt to identify a shady end user illegally using your product. There is no difference between, "You knew what they were doing," and, "You could have known what they were doing but didn't bother to check," as far as EAR is concerned.

In this case, Ubiquiti does not seem to be doing their due diligence with their distributors, and not knowing who their distributors were selling to or how their products were being re-exported is not an excuse because they didn't bother to ask and verify. Just because Ubiquiti wasn't a part of the sale does not absolve them of responsibility and liability.

---

I hope your company isn't selling gear on NewEgg because I can assure you the Russian Mafia in the US is shipping sanctioned hardware overseas.

Ukraine having success striking deep into Russia.

"As both sides in the war in Ukraine continue their campaigns of long-range drone attacks, the Ukrainian government's internal security agency has released a compilation of strikes directed against Russian airbases. The video, published by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), records drone strikes against Russian military aircraft by its special forces unit, the "Alpha Group," also known as "A" Special Operations Center."

STRIKES

Madyar's birds doing work, many reports of the frontline being frozen right now because of weather. This video seems to help corroborate those reports.

Some of that additional footage from spiderweb is pretty telling. They definitely did a number on those bombers.

This.

lb3 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aginresearch said:

---

The article says distributor almost every time. The article never directly says Ubiquiti. You know why? Because if it did it would be false and then the publisher would be liable.

They've found Raspberry PI 4 in Russian drones. Is the Raspberry Pi foundation selling equipment to Russia?

I bet you'd find some of your own company's equipment somewhere in the Russian military network. Doesn't mean you sold it to them.

---

You keep posting like Ubiquiti has no responsibility here because its distributors are the ones making illegal sales, but that doesn't make it true. Ubiquiti's compliance obligations involve screening its distributors for proper EAR adherence. They are supposed to be reviewing their policies, practices, transactions, and customer lists and ensuring they are only partnering with distributors who are compliant and abide by export controls. Making no attempt to identify a shady distributor who is making illegal resales or re-exports is no different than making no attempt to identify a shady end user illegally using your product. There is no difference between, "You knew what they were doing," and, "You could have known what they were doing but didn't bother to check," as far as EAR is concerned.

In this case, Ubiquiti does not seem to be doing their due diligence with their distributors, and not knowing who their distributors were selling to or how their products were being re-exported is not an excuse because they didn't bother to ask and verify. Just because Ubiquiti wasn't a part of the sale does not absolve them of responsibility and liability.

---

I hope your company isn't selling gear on NewEgg because I can assure you the Russian Mafia in the US is shipping sanctioned hardware overseas.

---

We don't deal in hardware, but that is another issue entirely. "Well, some are going to get through, so what's the point in trying?" is guaranteed losing strategy. It is better to try to stem the tide and try to deal with the inevitable leaks in the dike than to do nothing but watch the flood.

This is my experience. For the sake of the firm, and to comply with federal laws, a rigorous degree of due diligence was the mandate. No responsible firm relies upon hope. That said, things do happen. Deal with the leaks, learn from mistakes, reform processes and get better.