Why did Kremlin channels respond to the drone strike with silence?

On June 1, the leading Russian central television channels, Channel One and Rossiya 1, provided almost no information in their final news programs about the drone attacks on a number of important military and infrastructure facilities in Russia.

What did the propaganda channels emphasize?
The channels focused on events such as the bombing of bridges in the Bryansk and Kursk regions, the assistance provided to train passengers, and the active participation of local residents in the evacuation process. The final programs of Rossiya 1 and Channel One also emphasized that President Vladimir Putin personally monitored the situation and received reports from government agencies.

However, no full information was provided about the drone attacks on military airfields in Bryansk and Kursk, except for the official statement of the Ministry of Defense. The channels devoted less than a minute to these events.

NTV Threats “Response” and Links to Negotiations
On NTV, however, events took a different turn. In the “Week Results” program, the attacks were linked to the negotiations between the Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Istanbul. Host Vladimir Chernyshev described these attacks as a “provocation,” stressed that Russia was responding “firmly” and accused the Kiev “regime” of dangerous actions.

In his opinion, Ukraine aimed to put pressure on the negotiations through these attacks and thereby hope to receive even more help from the “protectors.” At the same time, Chernyshev stressed the need to create “buffer security zones” on the Russian borders.

Solovyev: “Shoot, but you can’t shoot”
One of the speeches that caused particular discussion was Vladimir Solovyov’s statement in the “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” program on “Russia 1.” He called the young soldier who posted a video of the attacks on military airfields a “traitor to the Motherland” and openly called for him to be “shot.”

Solovyov criticized the soldier, saying that soldiers should not have phones. However, this sensational opinion caused widespread discussion on social networks. Z-channels and military telegram channels sharply criticized the propagandist, rejecting his illogical and harsh attitude.

Z-channels responded
Channels such as “Romanov Light”, “Military Correspondent” Roman Alekhine, and “PriZrak Novorossii” considered Solovyov’s words incorrect and even dangerous. They reminded that such statements can be considered extremism under the law. In particular, the “PriZrak Novorossii” channel cited the prison sentence of former FSB officer Igor Strelkov for such statements.

Conclusion: Silence and Threat — The Kremlin Media Approach
The events of June 1st were not presented in the Russian media as a reality that should have caused fear and anxiety, but rather were overshadowed by other events or were deliberately met with silence.

While propaganda channels are limited to official statements, it is becoming increasingly evident that attempts to understand the real situation through videos, classified information, and online analysis published by independent news sources are gaining momentum.