On the final day of 2025, a diplomatic storm erupted as the European Union’s top foreign policy official, Kaja Kallas, forcefully rejected Russian claims that Ukraine had attempted a drone strike on President Vladimir Putin’s official residence. Kallas, speaking on social media and echoed by EU institutions, labeled the Kremlin’s allegations a “deliberate distraction” and accused Moscow of using unfounded accusations to undermine ongoing peace efforts and derail meaningful negotiations.
The controversy began when Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that, between December 28 and 29, its air defenses had intercepted 91 Ukrainian drones allegedly targeting Putin’s residence in the Novgorod region—specifically, his private home on Lake Valdai in north-west Russia. According to Russian officials, 50 of those drones were reportedly shot down over Bryansk and Smolensk oblasts, regions that do not even border Novgorod. The Russian military released images of a downed unmanned aerial vehicle, claiming it was part of the attempted strike, and a serviceman appeared in a video next to the wreckage, asserting it was a Ukrainian Chaklun drone. Maps were displayed, allegedly showing the drones’ flight paths from Ukraine’s Sumy and Chernihiv regions.
Yet, the evidence presented was quickly called into question. The BBC reported that while the wreckage bore similarities to Ukrainian-produced Chaklun drones, the components were inexpensive and widely available online, making it impossible to conclusively link the drone to Ukraine’s military. The broadcaster also noted that it could not verify the location of the footage. Meanwhile, a Russian investigative media outlet said it had spoken to more than a dozen residents near Putin’s Valdai residence, none of whom reported hearing anything that could indicate the presence—or destruction—of 91 drones. “If something like that had happened, the whole city would have been talking about it,” one local told the outlet.
Analysts at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) also rejected Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claims about the alleged Ukrainian strike, noting the lack of evidence and the absence of any reported air defense activity by local residents in Valdai on the night in question. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was even more direct, calling Lavrov’s assertion “yet another lie” and arguing that it was intended to justify further Russian strikes against Ukraine. “The claims about the drone attack on Putin’s Valdai residence were about the fact that over the past month there were quite successful talks and a positive meeting between our teams, culminating in our meeting with President Trump,” Zelensky said, tying the allegations to recent diplomatic momentum between the U.S. and Ukraine.
Indeed, the timing of the Russian accusations appeared to coincide with a period of cautious optimism in Kyiv. American and Ukrainian delegations had been working closely, and Zelensky expressed hope that his country’s demands were being seriously considered in the latest round of peace negotiations. However, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov warned that Moscow would reassess its position in the talks, stating that the alleged attack represented a “final transition of the Kyiv regime to a policy of state terrorism.” Russian politicians and state media amplified this rhetoric, with Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Russian parliament’s defense committee, declaring, “The attack is a strike on the heart of Russia. After what [Ukraine] has done, there can be no forgiveness.”
For its part, Ukraine flatly denied any involvement in the alleged drone strike. A spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry dismissed the so-called evidence as “laughable,” telling Reuters, “They are not serious even about fabricating the story.” The Ukrainian government warned that Moscow would use the incident as a pretext for renewed attacks on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. That warning appeared prescient: as the diplomatic spat unfolded, several locations across Ukraine, including the Black Sea port city of Odesa, suffered drone attacks. Odesa endured a particularly severe assault, with an apartment block hit, six people injured—including three children—and more than 170,000 residents left without power in freezing temperatures.
Amid the escalating war of words, the international community called for caution and verification. According to Mezha, global partners urged all sides to support measured dialogue and avoid falling prey to information manipulation—a tactic that has become a hallmark of the conflict. Nations like Türkiye, which maintain communication with both Moscow and Kyiv, stressed the need for diplomacy grounded in verified facts rather than propaganda or unsubstantiated claims.
U.S. President Donald Trump, who had recently met with Ukrainian officials, added an unexpected twist to the saga. He told reporters he had learned about the alleged attack from Putin and was “very upset.” However, Trump also acknowledged the possibility that the Russian accusation was false, saying, “Perhaps there was no such attack. But President Putin told me this morning that it happened.” His ambivalence underscored the confusion sown by conflicting narratives and the challenges facing international mediators.
As 2025 drew to a close, the people of Ukraine expressed a mixture of hope and exhaustion. In Kyiv, 26-year-old Mariya, standing outside the golden-domed St. Sophia monastery, summed up the national mood: “We hope that all of this will end. We want this to be over and to live as we did before. We have a very beautiful country with enormous potential. Our strength is in our people, and that is why we keep going.” Nearby, teenage carolers sang Christmas songs and collected donations for the armed forces, with one stating, “We all want victory to come in 2026. It’s our united wish.”
Despite the flurry of accusations and counter-accusations, Kaja Kallas and the European Union remained steadfast in their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the pursuit of a peaceful resolution. “No one should accept unfounded claims from the aggressor who has indiscriminately targeted Ukraine’s infrastructure and civilians since the start of the war,” Kallas wrote. Her words were echoed by Ukraine’s allies and independent analysts alike, who cautioned against allowing disinformation to derail the fragile progress made at the negotiating table.
With the year ending and the war showing no signs of abating, the question that lingered over Kyiv, Moscow, and world capitals was simple but profound: Would 2026 finally bring peace—or would the conflict’s information front continue to overshadow the search for a lasting solution?
