The liberal-neo-con story on Ukraine: nothing but a series of hoaxes

As the reality dawns on them, the Russian economy is not going to collapse in 2026 [1], the Ukrainian army is faltering [2], the US is not going to gift any more free weapons, and the EU’s €90 billion over two years is nothing like enough to keep Ukraine afloat, [3] the liberal war-monger’s narrative is beginning to resemble a series of obvious hoaxes. It won’t help them, though.

Here is one of them. This is an ‘Explainer’ in the liberal Guardian. When you see ‘Explainer’, just like ‘fact-checker’, you know you are in for a good dose of propaganda. The ‘explainer’ concerns the recent claims and counter-claims about a supposed Ukrainian drone attack on one of the Russian President’s residences. The author, Shaun Walker, asks: “Did Ukraine target Putin’s residence or is Russian claim a ploy to sway Trump?”. Yes; I won’t be giving any prizes for guessing which side Walker tends towards.

Firstly; let’s recap. The claim from Russia is that Ukraine sent about 90 drones to attack the residence of Present Putin near Novgorod. Zelensky denies the claim and says that it is a Russian ploy to a) justify them attacking government buildings in Kiev and b) to undermine the “peace talks”. Reuters cites the Russian Defence Ministry as saying: “After Lavrov’s statement, Russia’s defence ministry said 91 drones had been downed on their way to the presidential residence, including 49 shot down over the Bryansk region which is 450 km from Valdai, one over the Smolensk region and 41 over the heavily forested Novgorod region.”. [4]

Let’s dismantle the “Explainer”:

The Russian claim, as so much of geopolitics in 2025, seems to have been primarily targeted at an audience of one, Trump, and he seems to have bought it.

Well. Hang on. Doesn’t “explainer” suggest, like “fact-checker”, some sort of balanced and careful analysis? And indeed the subheading promises just that. But, in saying that “Trump bought it”, the starting point is Walker simply assumes the claim is fake!

Often, when there is a Ukrainian drone attack, Russians living nearby post video of explosions to social media, but there is no footage of this supposed attack, and residents of nearby Valdai told Russian independent media outlets they had not heard explosions on Monday.

I am not sure about this claim. Citizens in Russia are cautioned against posting social media footage of drone attacks. If we look at the claim from the Russian Defence Ministry the drones were brought down at distance from the residence. If we accept that, (and Walker should have been aware of the statement from the Russian Ministry of Defence), then we would not expect nearby residents to have heard explosions. As for “independent media outlets” – this is, presumably, a reference to Russian exiled liberal media. Often funded by European governments [5] and hardly a credible source on anything to do with Russia; exiles are, naturally, always fervently opposed to their own governments. It is an amusing aspect of liberal media that they insist on calling this obviously biased army of Russian exiles “independent media”.

Can Moscow be trusted?

In a word, no. The Kremlin and the defence ministry often make fantastical claims about the war in Ukraine. Moscow still insists it never targets civilians in its drone and missile raids on Ukraine, despite regular evidence to the contrary.

You have to laugh. Where to start? With Kiev’s denials that it had anything to do with the Nord stream explosions perhaps? [6] – Though, despite everyone going quiet and relevant parties, such as Sweden closing down their investigation, it is widely known that this was an operation of Ukrainian intelligence. [7] Perhaps we should save Kiev’s, (and Walker’s blushes), and not even mention “fantastical claims” in connection with Kiev. As for Moscow insists it doesn’t target civilians “despite regular evidence to the contrary” – one is strongly tempted to say, “Walker claimed without evidence”. Where indeed is the evidence? One apparent piece of evidence concerned a very well publicised missile attack on a trolley bus in Suny. All the initial reporting focussed on the civilian casualties in a trolley bus. A few days later the detail emerged that the bus had been near a conference centre – which, at least aligned with the Russian explanation that they had been targeting a military gathering in the Conference hall. [9] One suspects that this is the kind of “regular evidence” that Walker refers to; i.e. curated by Ukraine media stories about civilian casualties. if you look at the images coming out of Ukraine they are all of civilian casualties and news about their successful attacks on Russian military targets; very little about damage to military installations in Ukraine. In Russian media the situation is reversed; a lot of stories about civilian casualties caused by Ukraine, and reports of successful military strikes in Ukraine. This is a war; this is what happens. Walker is, of course, free to be a patriotic journalist and paint a one-sided picture; Russia targets civilians in Ukraine. But, it slightly frustrates me that this is all presented as ‘explaining’. One can also ask; patriotism even in journalists is understandable. But why be so partisan in favour of a regime of nationalists in an economically backward and corrupt (by the usual measure) European country who certainly don’t represent your country’s interests?

Russian authorities have a long history of fictitious stories about Ukraine, stretching back to the 2014 annexation of Crimea when Putin claimed the Russian special forces annexing the peninsula were in fact local people.

Ah. This one. We see this all the time, from various think-tank experts, political figures and senior journalists. In its classical form it goes like this: “Putin lied when he said in January 2022 that he was not going to invade Ukraine, therefore when he says he is not going to invade Europe in 2029 he is also lying”. It is really hard to know how to take this. Do these people really believe this themselves? They are supposed to have some kind of models on which they analyse things. But, they appear not to. So; we have to do it. (Our own ‘explainer’ perhaps). When militaries launch operations they like to have an element of surprise. But, it is hard to do this when you have to position assets in the region in advance. So; they usually come up with some lie like “we are on a training exercise; of course we are not going to attack anyone”. The US did just this as it built up forces prior to their 2003 attack on Iraq. This is tactical battlefield lying. When Putin says that Russia is not going to invade Europe this is a line in a strategic political discourse. The context is completely different. And, indeed, in this discourse, Putin has been remarkably reliable and consistent over the years. For years they have been warning that Ukraine in NATO is a red line for them. No lies there. It turns out it they meant it. Specifically concerning Walker’s reference to “local people” he may be confusing the annexation of Crimea with actions in Donbas where Russia did say very loudly, (and probably with some truth), that the masked men seen breaking into government buildings were local people. Maybe such claims were made at some point in relation to Crimea, though I don’t recall this. The overall line from Russia at the time was operational silence. (Is Walker sure that the men in unmarked uniforms seen in Crimea were actually “special forces”)? At any event, Putin certainly admitted, after the event, when it was no longer a matter of military operational secrecy, that Russian forces had managed the operation in Crimea. Even in two sentences Walker manages to produce about five separate untruths. It is amazing.

Certainly, Putin’s residence would be seen by Ukrainian planners as a legitimate and tempting target. Making the move just at a key point in negotiations with Trump would be an odd choice, however, and the lack of corroborating witness accounts on the ground also makes the claims sound less plausible.

This isn’t credible. Even if this drone attack did happen it is hardly likely that anyone in Kiev seriously thought they would manage to kill Putin. They know that almost all their drones are shot down. These are not ballistic missiles; they fly at a few hundred Km/h. Even if one or two had got through, Russian security services would have had many minutes of warning; plenty of time to bundle Putin into a bomb shelter. One imagines that Walker introduces this unlikely line about “legitimate target” so he can say it is unlikely that Kiev would do it now and disrupt the “negotiations” – a sort of narrative trick. In reality, if this did happen, the reason would have been political; either to simply undermine the negotiations, (an independent war party in Ukraine – like Nord Stream), or to provoke Russia into a reaction and thus discredit them.

There are a couple of possibilities. Zelenskyy has claimed the accusation is a cover story to allow Moscow to strike government buildings in Kyiv, especially as Lavrov has said “retaliatory targets” have already been selected. But as the last four years show, Moscow does not require cover stories to hit all kinds of targets in Ukraine.

Ah, well done, Mr Walker. He seized on Lavrov’s remarks and turned them against Moscow. In fact, it is obvious, that Russia has, up till now, avoided hitting government targets in Kiev and, here, I agree with Walker, albeit on different grounds. I doubt that Russia would need to produce an elaborate plot like this if they decided to change tactics and start hitting government buildings in Ukraine. But; shouldn’t Walker draw some conclusions from the fact that this was the explanation, which he suggests is implausible, offered by Zelensky?

A more likely scenario would be that Putin, well aware of the theory that Trump is often swayed by the last person he spoke with, was wary of Zelenskyy’s in-person visit to Mar-a-Lago and what might be achieved in the talks. By accusing the Ukrainians of escalation, both publicly and to Trump on the phone, Putin may have been hoping to change the calculus in the US president’s head one more time and stave off any decisions the Kremlin would consider overly friendly to Kyiv.

One of the features of much war-mongering narrative on the Ukraine war is the ease with which motives are attributed to Putin, without, and I can’t help myself, any evidence. This is purely speculative. But; we were promised an ‘Explainer’. We have been short-changed. As concerns the speculation; the idea is of a political smear plot in which Putin acts the chief role by lying to Trump about an attack which didn’t happen. Well; we all have our preconceptions of the other side. A cheap little smear is not something I associate Putin with, based on my observations of his speech and actions over the years. The idea of Putin the liar – is part of the overall demonisation narrative. Nor is it consistent with observable evidence of how the Russians are conducting these negotiations; being both firm and very transparent about their negotiating positions. This version paints the Russian side as desperate and disorganised, casting around for tricks to sway the negotiations – acting like a third-world warlord in negotiations. I suppose it is possible; but it seems to me very ungrounded. It seems to owe a lot to a pre-ordained narrative picture of Russians as deceitful little demons, (with a hint of British colonialism thrown in) The narrative becomes self-fulfilling; the claims support the backstory which makes the claims seem plausible. The seductiveness of the liberal hoax narrative on Russia is it is internally cohesive. Like a good novel.

I don’t know whether Kiev, or a particular party in Kiev, launched a drone attack on President Putin’s residence in Novgorod region last week. It seems quite possible. Ukrainian intelligence seems quite lively and creative. I find the idea that Russia invented the story to try to sway Trump in negotiations inherently implausible, given my impression of the rational and professional basis on which they are conducting negotiations, but I suppose it is theoretically possible. Either way; the point of this piece was just to point out how Walker’s explanation, like so much of what passes for analysis, in the war-mongering liberal (and neo-con), media is full of holes. This is not investigatory journalism. It is the crude craft of narrative assemblage.

One final point. I am not in possession of detailed knowledge of US intelligence capabilities, but my general sense is that they would be able to detect a swarm of 90 drones launched from Ukraine and flying across European Russia. As of now, the CIA is giving nothing away. [10]. For what it’s worth; this argues against the Russian “false flag” theory, since, if US intelligence could determine whether or not it happened, a Russian false-flag would be definitely exposed; thus creating the exact opposite of the effect Walker claims. Whereas it does not undermine the theory that there was a drone attack and it was carried out by an independent party in Kiev; since, in this case, if the aim was to undermine negotiations, it wouldn’t matter if the attack could be validated by the US. These are obvious lines of thinking. But Walker avoids going in this direction. His ‘explainer’ is preset in another direction.

Update – new heights of absurdity

This is from another Guardian piece, this one by Luke Harding. Harding is much more prone to phantasical statements on Russia than Walker. (He believes in “joining the dots” on Russia):

Russia claims Ukraine carried out a major attack with 91 drones.

The story has been widely debunked. On Wednesday Ukraine’s foreign ministry dismissed the video three days after the event as “laughable”, Reuters reported, and said Kyiv was “absolutely confident” the attack did not happen. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, dismissed the report as “unfounded”. [11]

It isn’t 100% clear but is Harding simply suggesting that Ukraine’s denial and Kaja Kallas’s “unfounded” ‘debunk’ the story?! It would appear so, though the use of the passive construction – a common tactic – means he could say he was pointing to something else, though we will never know what. (The passive construction and especially the “widely believed” is a go to device of these people; as in “it is widely believed that Luke Harding works for MI6”. You get the idea out there, but don’t have to provide any proof). Apart from that – how has the story been ‘debunked’? Again; Harding claimed without evidence…. He has been “joining the dots” again.

In 2022 the European Council, of which Kallas is the Foreign Affairs Chief said:

The European Council strongly condemned acts of sabotage against critical infrastructure, including the Nord Stream pipelines, and stated that the EU would meet any deliberate disruption or other hybrid actions with a united and determined response. [12]

Until they found out it was Kiev of course.

Update – apparent US intelligence view and Russian counter-claim

The WSJ reports that US intelligence has determined that there was no Ukrainian drone attack. [13] Reuters say they cannot confirm the report. [14] I can’t read the WSJ report as it is behind a money-grasping paywall. It appears to be an off-the-record briefing of some kind, rather than an official statement.

That could itself, be an intelligence operation. But, I am inclined to believe the assessment, though my assessment would depend on the details of the source. If the source is intelligence officials that is one matter; if it is Congress people with ‘access to intelligence’, that is another.

It is also possible that different interpretations of the same data are possible. Drones were flying in a certain direction; Russia assumed that they were headed in the direction of Putin’s residence. US intelligence (who it has to be said are not exactly neutral in this conflict) came to another interpretation.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the Russian MOD has said they will provide the US with what they consider proof of their claims, decoded fight data from a shot down drone.

At any event; my media comment above still stands, because it shows the ever present over-eagerness to side with the Ukrainian side.

Notes

The liberal-neo-con story on Ukraine: nothing but a series of hoaxes

Can Moscow be trusted?

Related Posts

The free press in the WestThe free press in the West

Alleged bad behaviourAlleged bad behaviour

Is Zelensky shifting his position?Is Zelensky shifting his position?