How an ‘Intercepted Call’ Turns Horror into Theatre
If you want to prove absolute evil, don’t show evidence.
Show a devoted Russian Orthodox follower and mother who listens calmly while her son describes torture — and agrees with him.
That is the function of the so‑called “21 Roses” intercepted call: a five‑minute audio artefact presented as raw proof of Russian barbarism, moral collapse, and religious hypocrisy — all neatly wrapped into one emotionally devastating package.
It is also, on close inspection, a masterclass in atrocity propaganda.
This article examines the linguistic construction, narrative mechanics, religious framing, and behavioural implausibilities of the “21 Roses” call and explains why it should not be treated as a reliable record of an authentic intercepted conversation.
This analysis does not deny the existence of violence in war. It asks a narrower, more uncomfortable question:
Is this particular artefact evidence — or performance?
Full transcript in English from the produces documentary
Man: “Hello.”
Woman: “Hello my sweetheart.”
Man: “How is it going?”
Woman: “Fine how about you?”
Man: “Fine how about you?”
Man: “Great just getting back from the sauna.”
Woman: “From where?”
Man: “Sauna.”
Woman: “Well… How are you able to go to the sauna?”
Man: “No, the sauna, is what we call the hose we use to get washed with.”
Woman: “Ha, ha, Ok that get then.”
Man: “We are taking a walk, we are getting potatoes from farmers.”
Woman: “Are they selling them or giving them to you?”
Man: “They are giving them to us.”
Man: “We put together a small load of books too.”
Man: “We are reading staying cultured.”
Women: “Good boys.”
Women: “Just be careful of those farmers.”
Women: “Ive been to many different churches.”
Women: “All to pray especially for you.”
Women: “One in Baltiysk and one in Kaliningrad.”
Women: “and two in Sovetsk.”
Women: “And one in Slavsk too, so don’t you worry.”
Women: “You did not think your mum would sit around and do nothing for you?”
Man: “Well here, right in front of me, and actually I also took part.”
Man: “Some of the FSB guys tortured prisoners.”
Women: “Mm hum.”
Man: “Do you know what a “rose” is?”
Women: “No.”
Man: “You can make 21 “Roses” on a mans body.”
Women: “How so?”
Man: “Cut off the ten fingers, 10 toes and the cock. Sorry.”
Women: “Ok, I see.”
Man: “So you know what a rose looks like when it blooms?”
Woman: “Yes.”
Man: “Well it’s the same. The skin slides down the bone, revealing the muscle in each finger.”
Women: “Mm hum.”
Man: “Same thing below the belt.”
Woman: “Shit.”
Man: “They call it 24 roses on a mans body.”
Man: “You know what other kinds of torture I saw?”
Women: “Why did you say that you also took part in this?
Women: “It was the FSB men.”
Man: “Because we captured them and brought them in.”
Woman: “Really?”
Man: “While they were waiting to go into the torture rooms.”
Man: “We watched them and beat them up.”
Women: “Mm hum.”
Man: “We broke their legs to keep them from running.”
Man: “The guys caught one civilian.”
Women: “Arha.”
Man: “We took his phone.”
Man: “He had photos of all of our positions, he was taking photos and sending them to the enemy.”
Woman: “You can’t trust those Ukrainians, those Khokhols.”
Man: “There was an old man, and they beat him with rubber club.”
Woman: “Arha.”
Man: “They beat him to death, you can imagine how many times they must’ve hit him, for him to be killed by rubber clubs? They call them tranquillising clubs.”
Women: “Mm hum.”
Man: “I can tell you about another method that they use.”
Man: “They put a tube up their arse.”
Woman: “Really?”
Man: “Yes, and then they put barbed wire through the tube, someone told me they used the method in Chechnya before.”
Woman: “And you know how the Ukrainians are humiliating us?”
Man: “Yes, I know.”
Woman: “Yes.”
Man: “That’s why I don’t have an ounce of pity for them.”
Woman: “Oh, to that point?”
Man: “We were sitting down, when they brought in this guy they had taken prisoner.”
Man: “He said, “To avenge my death my guys will kill two of yours”
Man: “He sat down and he said, “I don’t give a shit about dying, I’m dying for the truth”
Women: “Mm hum.”
Man: “He was sitting in a chair with all of his bones broken.”
Man: “I was the one who broke them all.”
Women: “Mm hum.”
Man: “And he shut up.”
Man: “I like doing it.”
Woman: “You like it?”
Man: “Yeah, I do, I don’t know it.”
Woman: “Ive always told you I was holding back on principle, but if I had been sent to the front with you, I would’ve enjoyed it too. You and I are the same.”
Man: “I realise I’m starting to go a bit bonkers.”
Man: “Its become so normal for me to talk about this.”
Woman: “You’re not mad you’re completely normal.”
Man: “Mum, you have to understand. We’re killing people here.”
Woman: “Are you sure they are even people?”
Woman: “They are not human beings.”
Man: “And I think, I was such a good guy before.”
Man: “But here, I swear, we…”
Man: “I wish I could tell you everything.”
Man: “I really want you to see how much I have changed.”
Video taken as is from Documentary
What the Documentary Claims This Is
- Material: Alleged intercepted telephone call
- Languages: Russian audio, English subtitles
- Participants: Male speaker (identified as soldier), female speaker (identified as mother)
- Duration analysed: Approximately five minutes
The call is presented as spontaneous, private, and unfiltered — a rare glimpse into the moral universe of Russian soldiers and their families.
What it actually resembles is something else entirely.
A Conversation Built Like a Screenplay
The call follows a rigid, almost theatrical escalation:
- Domestic normality (bathing, food, casual chat)
- Religious reassurance (mother visiting multiple Orthodox churches)
- Sudden plunge into graphic torture
- Normalisation and validation of violence
- Moral inversion (“they are not human”)
- Psychological breakdown reframed as health
This is not how trauma surfaces in real conversation.
It is how atrocity narratives are structured for maximum emotional impact.
The juxtaposition of ordinary life with extreme violence is a well‑documented propaganda technique: the shock comes not from violence alone, but from how casually it is presented.
Translation as Reconstruction, Not Transmission
The English subtitles exhibit clear signs of editorial shaping:
- Awkward phrasing inconsistent with natural English or literal translation
- Explanatory passages that resemble narration rather than speech
- Graphic anatomical descriptions delivered with unnatural clarity
In real family conversations — especially in Russian — descriptions of violence are typically euphemistic, fragmented, or avoided entirely. Here, they are anatomically precise, extended, and rhetorically polished.
This suggests translation‑by‑construction, not translation‑by‑fidelity.
“21 Roses”: Symbolism That Doesn’t Belong in Real Speech
The use of metaphorical symbolism is one of the most telling elements.
The term “roses” to describe mutilation is linguistically unnatural in spontaneous Russian speech — particularly in a conversation with one’s mother. The numeric symbolism shifts without explanation:
- first 21 roses
- later 24 roses
The numbers are dramatic but inconsistent. They carry rhetorical weight but no internal logic — a hallmark of stylised storytelling rather than lived recollection.
The Religious Mother Who Isn’t
The woman is portrayed as deeply devout:
- visiting multiple Orthodox churches
- travelling across towns specifically to pray
- invoking faith repeatedly
This sets up a powerful contrast — and a serious problem.
Orthodox Christian doctrine explicitly condemns torture, cruelty, and dehumanisation. Yet this mother:
- reacts calmly to torture descriptions
- reinforces violent behaviour
- dehumanises victims
- reassures her son that he is “completely normal”
This is not religious psychology. It is character construction.
Why the Church Is Here at All
Since 2014 — and especially after 2022 — Ukrainian state and aligned media narratives have increasingly framed the Russian Orthodox Church as:
- a Kremlin tool
- an ideological enabler of violence
- morally corrupt
The “21 Roses” call fits neatly into this political framing. It does not merely depict violence; it associates that violence with Orthodox belief — transforming religion itself into a suspect moral force.
This is not incidental. It is narrative alignment.
Behaviour That Fails Every Reality Test
Several elements defy plausibility:
- Extended, uninterrupted descriptions of multiple torture methods
- No interruption, shock, or emotional rupture from the mother
- Calm validation of extreme cruelty
- Linear, coherent storytelling in the midst of alleged psychological collapse
In genuine intercepted calls involving trauma, speech is fragmented, contradictory, or evasive. Here, it is fluent, orderly, and escalating.
That is not trauma. That is scripting.
Institutional Collapse by Convenience
The dialogue collapses multiple institutions into a single narrative space:
- frontline soldiers
- FSB interrogators
- detention centres
- civilian prisoners
Real systems — even brutal ones — remain compartmentalised. This call ignores those boundaries to simplify blame and accelerate outrage.
Complexity is sacrificed for clarity. That is a propaganda choice.
The Psychology That Only Exists in Fiction
Lines such as:
- “I like doing it.”
- followed immediately by reassurance that this is “completely normal”
mirror fictional portrayals of moral collapse, not real psychological responses to violence.
Real perpetrators display contradiction, distancing, or denial — not seamless acceptance and affirmation.
The coherence here is the giveaway.
Internal Contradictions That Never Resolve
The call contains multiple unresolved inconsistencies:
- numeric symbolism that changes
- claims of mental breakdown alongside narrative precision
- apologising for graphic speech while continuing in detail
These are characteristic of composite storytelling — stitched together to serve a message.
What This Audio Is Actually Doing
The “21 Roses” call is not trying to document behaviour. It is trying to teach the audience how to feel.
It achieves this by:
- merging domestic intimacy with atrocity
- collapsing moral boundaries
- weaponising religion
- eliminating ambiguity
This is not evidence.
It is emotional choreography.
Conclusion: Horror as Performance
The “21 Roses” intercepted call fails linguistic, psychological, religious, institutional, and conversational reality checks.
That does not mean violence does not occur in war.
It means this artefact is not a trustworthy record of it.
What remains is not raw interception, but a carefully engineered moment of horror — staged not for truth, but for belief.
In short: this is not a phone call.
It is a script pretending to be one. A beautiful example of propaganda
The portrayal of the Orthodox mother is what stood out to me — it doesn’t align with real religious behaviour.
This analysis focuses on how the story is constructed, not on excusing violence or minimising suffering.
It looks at language, narrative escalation, religious framing, and behavioural plausibility — the same tools used in media literacy and forensic analysis.
You don’t have to agree with the conclusions.
But if a recording is offered as evidence, it’s reasonable to ask whether it sounds like real speech or a story written for an audience.
Keep the discussion thoughtful and grounded.
I found this disturbing when I first heard it. Now I’m disturbed for a different reason.
Where is MSM?
What sick minds come up with stories like this? The producers must be mentally ill to think as they have. About time someone called them out.