>I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it?
that was sarcasm, sorry, I forgot it doesn't go well here. there is nothing in the indictment about how they were able to identify particular perpetrators including their full names.
>I assumed they used stolen identities,
No one in Russia uses their full names with patronymics spelled out in paper mail or e-mail or in official paperwork, except in e.g. a job application or similar i.e. where one must be fully identified. So unless it's a bad case of a Hollywood movie script, those could have come only from hacked internal databases. I am not sure a spy agency would thus reveal it has hacked those internal databases or had a mole in GRU. And on top of that they would be somehow able to match a record in that database with a hacker out there - a truly miraculous feat. On the other hand if those are stolen identities, there are no hints of that in the indictment. They are presented as true identities. And still, full patronymics just don't compute.
>Why are you providing me a wikipedia link?
What do you want me to provide to prove that he is not to be trusted? My own investigation?