Was there a strike on Putin? Trump and Europe do not believe it
On the eve of the New Year holidays, Moscow issued a statement claiming that Ukraine had shelled Vladimir Putin’s residence in Russia’s Novgorod region. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia would revise its negotiating position, although Moscow does not intend to withdraw from the talks.
Russian officials accused Kyiv of targeting Putin's residence, and state media began calling for the Kremlin to harden its negotiating stance. However, as Western outlets have noted, Moscow has provided no substantive evidence to support the claim. Western analysts link the accusations to recent U.S.–Ukraine meetings that reportedly brought the two sides closer together, a development that would automatically complicate Moscow’s negotiating position.
On January 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense said it had recovered the controller of one of the Ukrainian drones allegedly involved in the attack on the Valdai residence. The ministry said it handed the device over to the United States, but this did not change Donald Trump’s position. Trump later posted on his Truth Social account a New York Post article titled, “Putin ‘attack’ bluster shows Russia is the one standing in the way of peace.”
Negotiations over the war in Ukraine have dragged on for months. U.S. representatives have alternated between talks with each side. Trump has repeatedly announced “breakthroughs,” only for the process to slide back into stagnation, while fighting and casualties continue to mount. He has publicly criticized both Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, but no tangible progress has followed.
Source: CNN
BBC analysts have noted that for months both Russia and Ukraine gave evasive answers when asked whether they were prepared to end the war on U.S. terms. After another round of talks in Berlin and Florida, however, it became clear that Kyiv and Washington were moving closer to a compromise on draft peace proposals. This suggests that Moscow may soon be forced to issue a clear public response.
Based on comments by Russian officials, it is evident that the Kremlin was dissatisfied even with the first version of the plan prepared by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, which some media described as Putin’s “wish list.” According to the BBC, a revised document drafted with the participation of European leaders appears to be even less acceptable to Moscow.
This has led some analysts to conclude that the Kremlin was searching for a pretext to reject Trump’s proposals without provoking his anger. An alleged assassination attempt on Putin would provide such a justification and allow Moscow to argue that Kyiv was undermining the U.S. president’s peace efforts. Trump, as is well known, is highly sensitive about his self-styled “peace mission.”
Source: The Atlantic
Trump’s initial reaction to the reports was negative. Several days later, however, he said he did not believe Moscow’s claims about a Ukrainian attack on Putin’s Novgorod residence. He made the remarks while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, January 4. When reminded that he had initially reacted angrily, Trump said he did not believe the strike had actually occurred and explained that he had lacked full information at the time. “Nobody knew anything at that moment. It was the first I had heard of it,” he said, according to DW.
Notably, Russia reported the alleged strike at the same time Volodymyr Zelensky was visiting the United States.
U.S. intelligence agencies have since concluded that Ukraine did not attempt to attack Putin’s residence at Valdai in the Novgorod region. This was reported by CNN, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, citing CIA assessments.
According to media reports, CIA Director John Ratcliffe informed the U.S. president on December 31 that intelligence officials did not consider Russia’s claims to be credible. A source cited by The Wall Street Journal said that while drones were detected in the area, their intended target was assessed to be a military facility in the Novgorod region that had previously been attacked.
Source: CNN
Russia, however, continues to insist that the intended target of the Ukrainian armed forces was Putin’s residence. “Decoding of routing data showed that the ultimate target of the Ukrainian UAV attack on December 29, 2025, was one of the facilities of the Russian president’s residence in the Novgorod region,” Interfax quoted the Ministry of Defense as saying.
The U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) examined Lavrov’s claims. In its analytical report, the institute said the currently available data provide no evidence or indication of a large-scale drone attack being carried out or repelled near Putin’s residence in the Novgorod region. It added that there are none of the characteristic signs typically associated with strikes of such magnitude.
ISW analysts, as cited by DW, found no geolocated evidence of Russian air defense activity, explosions, fires, or smoke plumes near the facilities allegedly targeted. Nor were there any reports from local authorities, who usually at least mention falling “debris from downed drones.”
The ISW report also highlights another factor casting doubt on the credibility of Lavrov’s statements. He claimed that 91 Ukrainian drones were involved and that 89 were shot down, but these figures contradict earlier Defense Ministry data stating that 47 drones were intercepted in the same region on the night of December 28–29.
Source: TASS
Such discrepancies, U.S. analysts say, undermine the credibility of the Kremlin’s claims. Another argument against Moscow’s version is the “unusual silence” on social media. Russian platforms and public channels have carried no reports of the alleged shelling, nor have they published photos or other material that typically appears even after minor incidents. There were no air raid alerts, and residents did not report hearing the sound of a large swarm of drones.
Media outlets have also recalled that in the summer of 2025 there were reports that air defenses around Putin’s residence in the Novgorod region had been reinforced.
European analysts likewise regard Moscow’s claims as implausible and untrustworthy. The prevailing view is that the alleged strike on Putin’s residence is a fabrication intended to drive a wedge between Ukraine and the United States.
Moscow has so far failed to counter this criticism convincingly. The sole piece of “evidence” presented to Trump on January 1 was reportedly dismissed. The question therefore remains open: was there actually a strike on the residence, or was the incident fabricated to give Russia greater room to maneuver in negotiations? In any case, Moscow will now have to contend with the consequences of the narrative it has promoted.
By Tural Heybatov
Similar news
