Russia has accused Ukraine of launching strikes on its energy infrastructure and targeting residential areas within its territory.
The allegations were made by Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, who stated that Ukrainian actions were deliberately aimed at disrupting existing agreements and derailing the negotiation process between the two countries.
Zakharova warned that Russia could respond to these alleged actions with symmetrical measures. She described Ukraine’s strikes as “barbaric” and claimed they endangered the possibility of further dialogue. According to her, the Ukrainian side was undermining recent diplomatic progress, without providing verifiable evidence to substantiate the claims of Ukrainian attacks on residential quarters in Russian cities.
The statement came shortly after Russia launched a series of missile and drone strikes on several Ukrainian cities, including Kropyvnytskyi, Odesa, and Zaporizhzhia. These attacks resulted in fires, damage to infrastructure, and destruction in residential areas. Other regions also experienced drone strikes, raising questions regarding Russia’s own adherence to any alleged agreement to reduce hostilities.
The Russian authorities have previously justified their operations in Ukraine by referring to attacks on energy infrastructure. However, claims that Russian strikes do not target civilian infrastructure have been widely disputed by Ukrainian authorities and international observers. The recent wave of Russian attacks appears to contradict Zakharova’s assertion that Moscow is not targeting civilian areas.
Ukraine has not confirmed responsibility for the alleged attacks on Russian energy installations, including reported incidents near Sudzha, a key point in Russia’s gas transport system. Some analysts have suggested that these incidents may be part of a broader narrative advanced by Russian officials to justify withdrawal from any provisional understandings or to signal a shift in strategy ahead of upcoming negotiations.
The broader context includes phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, during which the idea of a 30-day ceasefire was discussed. While no formal agreement was publicly disclosed, subsequent Russian actions suggest a lack of commitment to de-escalation. Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities resumed shortly after the call.
Following the conversation, President Trump faced questions from American media regarding his administration’s response to renewed Russian strikes. His public reaction – stating that “they are at war with each other” – was interpreted by some commentators as a signal that Washington would not take further steps to pressure Moscow at this time. No additional sanctions or measures have been announced following the resumed bombardments.
Analysts note that this apparent inaction could be interpreted by the Russian leadership as tacit approval or at least an absence of significant political cost for continuing the war. The absence of immediate consequences may also have emboldened the Russian foreign ministry to issue statements placing responsibility for the breakdown of dialogue on Ukraine.
In her remarks, Zakharova implied that Russia might formally abandon any tentative ceasefire arrangements if Ukrainian forces continue to engage Russian targets. She also referenced the prospect of further discussions taking place in Riyadh, where Russia is expected to press the United States and Ukraine to adopt specific terms. Among these are demands for Ukraine to halt mobilisation efforts and for Western countries – particularly the United States – to suspend military assistance to Kyiv.
These conditions, however, are widely viewed as unrealistic by Western policymakers, especially given Ukraine’s ongoing defensive posture. While Washington has not publicly committed to any of Moscow’s proposals, it has also not introduced new punitive measures in response to the latest developments.
Zakharova’s comments may be intended to position Ukraine as a spoiler of diplomacy, thereby diverting attention from Russia’s own actions. At the same time, observers have noted the timing of her remarks, coinciding with fresh waves of Russian military activity on Ukrainian soil.
As the situation develops, attention is likely to focus on whether the United States will continue to refrain from responding directly to Russia’s military actions, or whether President Trump will pursue further sanctions or increase support for Ukraine. A failure to do so may allow Russia to claim that any collapse in talks is the result of Ukrainian non-compliance, rather than Russian aggression.
It remains unclear whether the proposed 30-day ceasefire will be pursued further. Russian statements suggest that the continuation of even limited restraint will be contingent on Ukrainian and Western concessions. In the absence of such moves, Moscow may fully withdraw from any informal agreements and escalate its military campaign further.
The dynamic between Washington and Moscow is therefore likely to play a crucial role in shaping the near-term trajectory of the conflict. With the Kremlin indicating it will hold Kyiv accountable for the collapse of any potential ceasefire, the focus will now shift to the next phase of diplomatic engagement – or its collapse.
Read also:
Intelligence Contradicts Claims of Ukrainian Encirclement in Kursk
