CIA Reveals Ukraine Did Not Target Vladimir Putin: Kremlin Allegations Branded a Fabrication

The American intelligence community has delivered a clear verdict that directly contradicts Moscow's inflammatory claim: Ukraine made no attempt to assassinate President Vladimir Putin at his Lake Valdai residence.

The CIA's assessment, briefed directly to President Donald Trump on Wednesday by Director John Ratcliffe, confirms what Kyiv and European leaders have argued all along—that Russia has manufactured a crisis specifically designed to sabotage fragile peace negotiations at their most delicate moment.

What makes this revelation particularly striking is the timing. The Kremlin's accusation emerged on Monday, immediately following what both Trump and Zelensky had described as substantial progress in peace talks held at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday.

Russia alleged that Ukraine had launched 91 drones targeting Putin's residence in the Novgorod region on the night of 28–29 December. The claim was serious enough that Moscow said it would 'harden' its negotiating position as a result.

Initially, Trump appeared to accept Putin's account. During a phone call with the Russian president on Monday, Trump told reporters he was 'very angry' about the alleged attack, seemingly taking Russia's side despite Ukraine's emphatic denials.

For a brief moment, it looked as though the fragile consensus that had emerged from Miami had completely unravelled.

The Importance of the CIA Assessment: American Intelligence Shifts the Narrative

Yet within forty-eight hours, the intelligence picture had shifted dramatically. The CIA determined that Ukraine had been aiming at a legitimate military target in the region—not Putin himself. More significantly, according to NBC News, the agency assessed that the alleged strike likely never occurred at all.

This American intelligence conclusion proved far more damaging to Russia than Ukraine's initial denials. When Trump was briefed on Ratcliffe's assessment on Wednesday, his public stance transformed markedly.

The president subsequently posted a link to a New York Post editorial headlined 'Putin "attack" bluster shows Russia is the one standing in the way of peace.' For the first time in weeks, Trump's public criticism pointed directly at Moscow, not Kyiv.

The CIA's assessment draws on decades of accumulated intelligence expertise. The agency monitors Russian territory through satellite imagery, radar coverage, and intercepted communications.

Russian air defence systems protecting the heavily fortified Valdai complex comprise twelve separate units positioned specifically to defend against drone strikes. For Ukraine to have successfully executed a coordinated assault involving dozens of aircraft without these multiple layers detecting and intercepting would require either extraordinary luck or Russian negligence on a staggering scale.

The Evidence Problem: Why Moscow Cannot Convince

Moscow's 'evidence' crumbles under scrutiny. The Russian defence ministry released footage it claimed showed a Ukrainian Chaklun drone, along with a map allegedly depicting the flight path. However, drone components are inexpensive and widely available online—the BBC found it impossible to verify the footage's authenticity or location.

More damaging still, Russian investigative outlet Sota interviewed more than a dozen residents living near Putin's residence. None reported anything suggesting 91 drones had approached or been intercepted by air defences. One resident remarked simply: 'If something like that had happened, the whole city would have been talking about it.'

This fact cannot be overstated. Air defence systems engaged for hours would generate audible noise across the entire region. Yet the silence from Valdai residents proved deafening.

The Geopolitical Context: Sabotage at a Pivotal Moment

Zelensky had warned this scenario would unfold. He said Russia's allegations were 'a complete fabrication intended to justify additional attacks against Ukraine, including Kyiv, as well as Russia's own refusal to take necessary steps to end the war.' Almost immediately, Russian drone strikes intensified. On 30 December, Odesa suffered a particularly intense assault, with a residential complex struck and six civilians injured, including three children.

The United States and European leaders have now unified around a single interpretation: Russia deliberately manufactured this crisis to disrupt peace momentum. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas branded the claims 'a deliberate distraction' and 'an attempt to derail the peace process.'

The CIA's sober assessment provides Western governments with the factual foundation required to counter Russia's narrative with credibility. Trump's subsequent pivot suggests the intelligence briefing proved persuasive, even to a president initially inclined to believe Putin's account.

As peace negotiations reconvene in January, this moment will loom large. Russia has demonstrated it will fabricate allegations of Ukrainian aggression to justify continued warfare. The question now facing diplomacy is whether such bad-faith tactics can be overcome—or whether they will derail the fragile consensus on which a ceasefire ultimately depends.