On January 1, Russia’s Ministry of Defense added another “hardline version” to claims that a presidential residence in the Novgorod region had been attacked. The ministry says a “special technical examination” of one of the downed Ukrainian drones extracted the flight-mission file (route data) uploaded to the UAV. Russia argues the route analysis shows the drones’ final target was one of the facilities at the residence and adds that the information will also be sent to the United States.
US intelligence, however, paints a different picture. According to information cited by The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, US national security circles have concluded that Ukraine did not target Putin or his residences. In particular, reports say CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Donald Trump that Ukraine was trying to strike a different military facility, not the residence.
The White House did not issue a lengthy official comment on the matter, reportedly directing questions to Trump’s social media posts. Trump, for his part, shared a link on Truth Social on December 31 to an article claiming there “was no Ukrainian attack,” but did not explicitly say he “confirms” the intelligence assessment. WSJ notes the post appeared after Ratcliffe’s briefing.
A second layer to the story is political calculation. Some Western outlets have suggested Russia could use these claims to harden its stance amid negotiations. At the same time, it is also noted that Moscow has not fully released into the public domain the evidence it says proves the intended target.
Earlier, Russia said that on the night of December 28–29, 91 drones were spotted over the Novgorod region, allegedly shot down over various regions, with no casualties or damage. Ukraine rejected the claims: reports cite Zelensky calling the statements false and warning Russia may be creating a “pretext” for another strike on government buildings in Kyiv.
In short, the information front is hotter than the drones themselves: Russia says “we found the file,” while the US signals “not the residence.” The key question now is whether an exchanged “evidence package” between Moscow and Washington will clarify the incident—or whether the controversy will drag on.
Read “Zamin” on Telegram!
Users of Меҳмон are not allowed to comment this publication.
