All 91 UAVs launched by Kiev at the presidential compound in Novgorod Region on the night of December 28-29 were destroyed
Moscow’s Defense Ministry has published a video showing one of the Ukrainian long-range drones that was shot down during Kiev’s failed attack on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence early on Monday.
All 91 UAVs which Kiev launched at the presidential compound in Novgorod Region on the night of December 28-29 were destroyed, according to the Russian military.
A Russian serviceman who appeared in the clip released by the Defense Ministry on Wednesday said that the downed drone was a Ukrainian-made Chaklun-V reconnaissance and strike UAV that had been modified.
The drone was struck in the tail-end by Russian air defenses but remained mostly intact, which is a “unique” occurrence, he stressed.
The UAV’s unexploded warhead was “packed with a large amount of striking elements and was intended to eliminate personnel and civilian targets,” the serviceman added.
The Defense Ministry said in a separate statement that it has “presented irrefutable evidence of a terrorist attack planned by the Kiev regime on the Russian President’s residence.”
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who denies that the drone raid took place, is “either unaware of the actual situation or is simply lying as he usually does,” it stated.
The ministry also published a map showing the route of the Ukrainian UAVs that targeted the presidential compound. According to the scheme, Russian air defenses shot down 49 drones above Bryansk Region, one above Smolensk Region and another 41 above Novgorod Region.
The Kremlin noted previously that the Ukrainian drone attack was aimed not only against Putin, but also “against [US] President [Donald] Trump’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict.”
Kiev had launched 91 long-range strike drones at the presidential compound in Novgorod Region on the night of December 28-29
Moscow’s Defense Ministry has released a map showing the route of the Ukrainian long-range drones that targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence in Novgorod Region early on Monday.
According to Moscow, Kiev launched 91 UAVs at the compound on the night of December 28-29. All of the incoming drones were destroyed before they could reach the residence.
The map released by the Defense Ministry on Wednesday shows the flight path of the UAVs, which were launched from several locations in Ukraine and flew north towards Russia’s Novgorod Region through Bryansk, Smolensk and Tver regions.
According to the map, Russian air defenses shot down 49 drones above Bryansk Region, one above Smolensk Region and another 41 above Novgorod Region as they approached Putin’s residence.
Later in the day, the Defense Ministry published footage showing the debris of one of the UAVs that had been used in the failed attack.
The ministry said in a statement that it has “presented irrefutable evidence of a terrorist attack planned by the Kiev regime on the Russian President’s residence.”
The intentions of the Ukrainian government are confirmed by “fragments of drones shot down in Novgorod region, including those with warheads equipped with special striking elements designed to kill people,” the statement read.
The local eyewitness accounts of those who observed Russian air defenses at work “refute all attempts by Western and anti-Russian media outlets” to argue that there was “no evidence of a terrorist attack by the Kiev regime,” it said.
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who denies the drone raid on Putin’s residence took place, is “either unaware of the actual situation or is simply lying as he usually does,” the ministry argued.
The Kremlin noted previously that the drone attack was targeted not only against Putin, but also “against [US] President [Donald] Trump’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict.”
At least one civilian has been injured in the attack, according to the regional governor
Russian air defenses have detected and neutralized 21 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Moscow Region. At least five of them were intercepted on their way to the capital, according to local officials.
Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyov announced in a post on his Telegram channel on Tuesday evening that the drones were downed in seven municipalities – Ruzsky, Volokolamsky, Odintsovo, Mozhaysky, Narofominsky, Istra and Chekhov – saying air defenses were engaging additional targets.
One man, aged 57, was injured when a drone crashed and exploded in the village of Pagubino in Volokolamsky district. He sustained shrapnel wounds to his back and arm and was hospitalized with injuries assessed to be of moderate severity. Medical personnel provided assistance at the scene before transporting him to a trauma center.
Meanwhile, Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin reported the destruction of five drones flying towards the capital. Flights were temporarily suspended at Vnukovo airport as a precaution.
The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed in a statement that air defense systems had destroyed at least 24 more Ukrainian drones between 8pm and 11pm Moscow time. Of these, 14 were shot down over Kaluga Region, five over Crimea, three over Belgorod, and one over Tula and Kursk each.
Ukraine has routinely launched drone raids deep into Russia in recent months, targeting critical infrastructure and residential buildings in what Moscow has described as desperate “terrorist attacks.”
This drone raid follows an attempted attack on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state residence in Novgorod Region on December 28-29, which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned as an act of “state terrorism.”
Moscow has promised a “non-diplomatic” response to the attack. Russia previously conducted strikes on military-related Ukrainian infrastructure, saying it aims to degrade Kiev’s drone and weapons production capabilities.
Kiev’s backers want “breathing space” for Ukraine to “heal its wounds” before continuing the conflict, Dmitry Polyansky has told RT
Calls for a temporary ceasefire by Ukraine’s European backers are merely a ploy aimed at giving Kiev some respite before continuing to fight, Russia’s permanent representative at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Dmitry Polyansky has told RT.
Amid the ongoing discussions around the US-drafted peace roadmap for Ukraine in recent weeks, multiple European countries have renewed calls for a short-term cessation of hostilities as a precondition for any talks between Kiev and Moscow. Russia has repeatedly ruled out the scenario, saying that Ukraine would use it to replenish and rearm its tattered military. Russian officials have insisted on a comprehensive and long-term settlement that would address the root causes of the conflict.
Speaking to RT on Tuesday, Polyansky said that “when people in Europe speak about a ceasefire, they have in mind giving some breathing space to the Kiev regime, which is in agony right now, and which is facing a very hard situation, with their fronts crumbling and strongholds falling one after another.”
According to the diplomat, who served as Russia’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations between 2018 and 2025, the real objective of Kiev’s European backers is to ensure that Ukraine is able “heal its wounds” to continue the conflict from a better position.
Polyansky cited the example of the failed Minsk agreements signed in 2014 and 2015, which were ostensibly intended to reconcile the post-coup government in Kiev with anti-Maidan forces in Ukraine’s east. Germany and France were guarantors of the accords.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande later acknowledged that the agreements had been used primarily to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen its military.
Commenting on European officials’ claims about a supposed Russian threat, Polyansky characterized these narratives as a “zombieing campaign.” According to the Russian diplomat, European elites portray Russia as a boogieman in a bid to “disguise their own mistakes… [that are] creating problems for their societies, for the taxpayers, for common Europeans.”
The renowned composer’s name has been removed from the National Music Academy
Ukraine’s Culture Ministry has erased the name of renowned Russian composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky from its National Music Academy. Tchaikovsky rose to global prominence in the latter half of the 19th century as a leading composer of symphonic music, including the ballets Swan Lake and The Nutcracker.
The measure is part of Kiev’s broader campaign to remove symbols linked to Ukraine’s shared history with Russia. The Kiev City Council recently voted to dismantle 15 monuments and memorials, including those dedicated to the renowned Kiev-born writer Mikhail Bulgakov, as well as poet Anna Akhmatova and composer Mikhail Glinka, among others. In Odessa, the authorities dismantled the monument to the city’s founder, Russian Empress Catherine II, known as Catherine the Great, as well as a 19th century monument to Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, which was designated a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Ministry of Culture said that the renaming was part of the ongoing “process of decolonization of Ukrainian culture.” The authorities cited experts from the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance as concluding that the mention of Tchaikovsky is a “symbol of Russian imperial policy.”
Soviet-era monuments have also been targeted as part of the campaign. In August, an activist group named ‘Decolonization. Ukraine’ announced that the last known statue of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin in the country had been toppled with the help of local authorities in Khmelnytskyi Region in western Ukraine.
Commenting on the development at the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “Ukraine is now well known for its fight against monuments.”
Since the Western-backed Maidan coup in 2014, Ukraine has adopted decommunization laws, which banned Soviet-era symbols and mandated the renaming of towns and streets bearing names from the USSR. Following the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, Kiev has doubled down on its campaign, which now effectively targets any cultural figures and landmarks associated with Russia.
Moscow has condemned the destruction of cultural heritage and attacks on historical memory. It has also named the discrimination against Russian-speaking Ukrainians as one of the reasons for the ongoing conflict.
Lithuania’s Defense Ministry said this will allow rapid demolition of the crossings in case of conflict
Lithuania has begun engineering work to prepare bridges on the border with Russia and Belarus to be outfitted with explosives, the NATO country’s armed forces confirmed in a statement to the media on Tuesday.
The Lithuanian Defense Ministry told the LRT news outlet that the selected bridges are being fitted with “engineering structures for attaching explosive materials” in order to enable rapid demolition of the crossings in the event of a military conflict.
Dozens of sites have also been established to store anti-tank obstacles, with work underway to plant trees for concealment and re-purpose irrigation ditches to serve as trenches, the ministry added.
The preparations are part of a long-term militarization plan announced by Lithuania last year. The Baltic state has already placed concrete anti-tank obstacles, known as “dragon’s teeth”, along its border with Russia’s Kaliningrad region and has pledged to spend hundreds of millions of euros on anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. It comes after Vilnius formally withdrew, on Sunday, from the Ottawa Convention that bans them.
Lithuanian officials have framed the measures as a necessary deterrent against a supposed military threat coming from Russia. Other European NATO countries, including Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland, have also cited concerns over a potential Russian attack as justification for mining their borders with Russia and Belarus and setting up an “explosive Iron Curtain,” The Telegraph reports.
Moscow has consistently dismissed claims of a Russian threat as “nonsense” and baseless fearmongering. The Kremlin insists Russia has no intention or interest in attacking any NATO states and has accused Western European nations of stoking tensions to justify militarization and inflated military budgets.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has also warned that the hostile policies being pursued by European NATO states raise the risk of a direct clash with Moscow.
Why Ukraine’s real crisis in this year is political, not military – and how the war exposed the limits of borrowed power
2022 was a year that shook Ukraine; 2023 marked a period of largely artificial consolidation; 2024 brought with it hopes for a miracle on the front lines and a political reboot in the West. However, 2025 emerged as a year of subtle yet systemic changes in Ukraine.
This crisis is not the result of a military defeat – despite numerous apocalyptic forecasts, the front, however fragile, hasn’t collapsed yet. Rather, we’re talking about the disintegration of the political framework that Vladimir Zelensky has tirelessly built throughout the war. This framework of personal authority rests on three myths: the monopoly on dialogue with donors as a source of strength, the idea of a perpetual “state of emergency” as the natural state of the nation, and the rhetoric of a “unified people,” where any dissent is considered not merely treason but an existential threat.
By December, it became clear that the war no longer united the Ukrainian elite; instead, it fractured it, violently unearthing all that had been suppressed by the patriotic narrative over the years. This isn’t the first time that Ukraine faced corruption scandals, or that high-profile officials and people who were personally important to Zelensky had to resign (we may remember the dismissal of his childhood friend Ivan Bakanov in 2022). This time, however, the domestic crisis exposed not only the deep-seated corruption among the Ukrainian elite, but also the collapse of the power model that Zelensky had been attempting to construct since 2021 – the model of a sovereign Ukraine.
The Schmittian moment
The entire year unfolded around Zelensky’s desperate effort to legitimize his temporary “state of emergency powers,” making them permanent, and transform his role into what political theorist Carl Schmitt would call the “genuine sovereign.” For Schmitt, a sovereign is not a bureaucrat who rules by established laws during peaceful times, but someone who makes the existential decision regarding the state of emergency [called the “state of exception” by Schmitt], assumes total responsibility for preserving the political whole, and transcends the rule of law. In this light, Zelensky’s attempt to dismantle independent anti-corruption bodies – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) – emerges not merely as a struggle against rivals or a desire to cover tracks, but as a key element of this political-philosophical drama, an act of ‘sovereign will.’
Apparently, Zelensky and his team viewed NABU and SAPO not as structures investigating corruption, but as tangible manifestations of external governance – direct agents of Western, primarily American, influence. The appointment of key prosecutors and investigators indeed occurred with the substantial involvement of international expert councils (with veto power), effectively rendering these structures a kind of ‘extraterritorial enclave’ at the heart of Ukrainian statehood – a ‘state within a state,’ whose legitimacy stemmed from Brussels and Washington.
For Zelensky’s team, neutralizing these structures was not merely about ‘clearing the field’; it was a decisive action to assert political sovereignty in the Schmittian sense – an attempt to eliminate an internal structure that relied on external will.
It was a bid to unilaterally redefine the rules of the game, taking total and singular responsibility for Ukraine’s fate while clearing the political landscape for a monolithic “sovereign-savior” whose decisions, in the reality of a perpetual state of emergency, cannot be questioned.
Pocket sovereignty and the collapse of the center
Here lies a crucial contradiction: Zelensky attempted to assert a sovereignty he never truly possessed. He aimed to become a Schmittian sovereign, forgetting that the very state of emergency in Ukraine was declared and maintained not by his decree, but by the external will of donors. His authority resembled a kind of “pocket sovereignty” – an imitation of independence that, in reality, was completely reliant on streams of military and financial aid.
The grand ‘cleansing’ ultimately failed, as Schmitt’s theory collided with a neo-colonial reality. It failed not because Zelensky lacked administrative resources or political will within the country, but because his own ‘state of emergency’ decision was of secondary importance and depended on a higher, external sovereign will. Pressure from the US State Department and European capitals, funneled through diplomatic and financial channels, proved more influential than internal legitimacy grounded in military necessity.
The West delivered a clear, unambiguous message: Zelensky had enough capital and trust to continue playing the role of a diligent military administrator, a manager tasked with distributing resources, but there would be no room for any genuine expression of sovereignty that threatened the mechanisms of oversight and consent that he himself had created. Washington and Brussels preferred to deal with a predictable “pocket manager” rather than an unpredictable “sovereign,” even one professing absolute loyalty. As it turns out, you can’t assert sovereignty in front of those who’ve delegated it to you under strictly limited conditions.
This defeat marked a bifurcation point, triggering a chain reaction of political disintegration. Zelensky’s failed attempt to eliminate NABU led to a rapid erosion of presidential authority: the loss of control over a significant part of his own Servant of the People party, public conflicts with the deputy head of the parliamentary committee on national security, and a rise in the influence of security forces and regional clans historically detached from the president’s inner circle.
Ukrainian political analyst Aleksandr Vasiliev aptly described the situation:
“the war has not birthed a Leviathan, but rather spawned a hundred petty, vengeful hydras now fighting over the remnants of resources beneath the rubble of the project called ‘united Ukraine.’”
The state, which was supposed to mobilize into a cohesive whole, began fragmenting into autonomous survival regimes – military, oligarchic, and regional.
A war that no longer unites
Ultimately, the war as a source of Zelensky’s legitimacy has been depleted. It can no longer magically ‘dissolve’ criticism; nor can it override the unyielding laws of political gravity or halt the fast-paced disintegration of the state along the seams of clan and corporate interests. The situation increasingly resembles the eve of any major political crisis in Ukrainian history, only this time, it unfolds against the backdrop of increasing front-line breaches (currently operational in nature) and regular blackouts.
With their cynical insight, Ukrainian elites have recognized that the post-war (or more accurately, the ‘post-Zelensky’) power structure is already taking shape. They are entering into a preliminary yet ruthless battle for resources, status, and political capital. Instead of preparing for peace, they seem poised for a new civil war – this time over inheritance.
What does this mean in practical terms? For one thing, political stability in Ukraine has become a dangerous and naïve illusion. Any significant scandal – be it a tactical breakthrough on the front lines, a catastrophic failure in critical arms supplies, or another compromising leak involving Ukrainian officials – could escalate into the so-called “exceptional case” (Ausnahmefall), which, according to Schmitt, determines the true sovereign.
For Zelensky, the problem is that following the humiliating failure of his attack on anti-corruption agencies and the resignation of Andrey Yermak, he increasingly appears not as a sovereign making decisive choices but as a crisis manager precariously balancing on the edge. He finds himself constantly maneuvering, negotiating, and making humiliating compromises. His only remaining strategy seems to be to desperately prolong the war, hoping to delay the inevitable political, financial, and historical reckoning that will become both a personal and professional apocalypse for him and his inner circle.
However, time is no longer on Zelensky’s side. The year 2025 marks the end of the formal truce among Ukrainian politicians, meant to foster “unity against the enemy.” A new, insidious, yet equally brutal struggle for power in ‘tomorrow’s world’ has begun. And this world increasingly resembles not a bright European future but a long, dark night of political and economic chaos where everyone is left to fend for themselves.
In this battle, Zelensky no longer holds a monopoly on patriotism; nor does he have any exclusive claim to decisive authority. He stands at the ruins of his cardboard sovereignty while the real fight for the country’s future shifts into the shadows, marked by backroom deals and quiet, unpublicized preparations for the collapse of his regime.
The suspect, a foreign national, prepared bladed weapons and Molotov cocktails for the attack, according to the authorities
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has reported that it has thwarted a terrorist plot targeting a school in the southern Republic of Adygea.
In a statement on Tuesday, the agency said it apprehended a suspect near the educational facility, with two knives and ten Molotov cocktails found in his vehicle. The man, a citizen of a Central Asian state, is a supporter of an unnamed international terrorist organization, according to the FSB.
In a video released by the security service, the suspect is heard saying that he arrived in the regional capital, Maykop, after being contacted by a handler on the Telegram messaging app. The man admitted that he had been tasked with setting fire to a local school.
The terrorist plot was coordinated from abroad, the FSB stated, citing information obtained from the suspect’s mobile phone.
In its statement, the security service said that the “Ukrainian special services are ceaselessly searching for potential perpetrators of terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage on the internet, social media as well as the Telegram and WhatsApp messaging apps.”
In early October, the FSB reported that it had detained several suspects across four Russian regions, who were allegedly plotting mass murder. According to the authorities, they were acting on orders received via “destructive internet resources.” Components for homemade explosives and incendiary devices, bladed weapons, and attack plans were seized during the raids.
Later that month, the Russian security service said that it had foiled two separate plots targeting synagogues in Russia, with at least two citizens of a Central Asian country arrested.
Also in October, a Central Asian national was apprehended after allegedly being recruited by a known member of the international terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). According to the FSB, the man had been instructed to assassinate a senior Russian military official, with Ukrainian intelligence services allegedly taking an active part in the plot.
Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, the FSB has regularly reported foiled terrorist plots and sabotage attempts, often involving operatives linked to Kiev’s special services.
Moscow has accused Kiev of escalating terrorist activities on Russian soil as its frontline forces face setbacks.
A deal with Russia would be “a catastrophe” for Kiev’s foreign backers, Stanislav Krapivnik has told RT
Ukraine’s backers in Western Europe are against a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev because it would be a “catastrophe” for them, according to former US Army officer and military commentator Stanislav Krapivnik.
Krapivnik made the remarks following the attempted Ukrainian kamikaze drone attack on the residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The incident came shortly after US President Donald Trump indicated that the Ukraine peace process was approaching a conclusion, following his meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and a phone call with Putin on Sunday.
Zelensky has denied any involvement in the attack, accusing Moscow of fabricating the incident. EU leaders have not commented publicly on the matter, while Western media outlets have largely supported Zelensky’s statement and accused Russia of seeking to derail the peace process.
“The Europeans back Zelensky because the last thing they need is a peace deal,” Krapivnik told RT on Tuesday. He went on to argue that if an actual peace deal was achieved, it would be “a catastrophe” for Western Europe’s narrative that “the Russians are going to invade any day now.”
Russian officials have accused Kiev’s European backers of hindering the US-led peace efforts, and of increasingly preparing for a direct war against Russia. Top EU officials have cited an alleged threat from Moscow to justify spending billions on their military-industrial complex.
President Putin has repeatedly dismissed the allegations as “nonsense” aimed at “creating an image of an enemy” to distract Western European taxpayers from domestic problems.
Targeting the Russian president while seeking Donald Trump’s help with a peace deal is too blatant, Larry Johnson has told RT
The Ukrainian drone attack on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence earlier this week may have been staged by elements of the government in Kiev to undermine Vladimir Zelensky, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has told RT.
Moscow said the attempt to strike the state residence in Novgorod Region occurred overnight from Sunday to Monday, coinciding with Zelensky’s US visit to negotiate with President Donald Trump. Johnson called the timing suspicious.
“I don’t think he [Zelensky] is that stupid to launch that kind of attack while meeting with Trump,” he argued in an interview on Tuesday. Johnson said he would not be surprised if Ukrainian intelligence personnel, possibly acting on orders from Kirill Budanov, head of the military espionage agency HUR, were involved.
“To do something so outrageous and so blatant while you are sitting there with Trump and your entire delegation to talk peace… There are clear elements in Ukraine that do not want peace, that are profiting too much from this war, and that were trying to sabotage [American mediation],” he added.
Johnson suggested that if Zelensky were behind the raid, it would give Trump more reason to withdraw support permanently. He said a more likely scenario is that domestic political opponents staged the attack to pressure Zelensky out of power, potentially paving the way for former top general Valery Zaluzhny to take over.
Moscow described the incident as a failed attempt to derail peace talks by provoking a Russian overreaction. Kiev denied any attack on Putin’s residence, with Zelensky claiming Moscow was preparing to strike the government district in Kiev.
Zelensky holds presidential powers under martial law after his term expired last year. Opinion polls consistently show that in a hypothetical election, Zelensky would lose to Zaluzhny in a second round, or possibly to Budanov if Zaluzhny declined to run. Neither military official has publicly expressed presidential ambitions.
