這起被外界形容為「羅生門」的事件，發生在2025年12月28日至29日之間，迅速成為俄烏戰爭輿論場中的高度敏感議題。俄羅斯國防部高調對外宣布，烏克蘭方面動用多達91架無人機，企圖對俄羅斯總統普京位於諾夫哥羅德州的官邸發動協同攻擊，但所有無人機最終均被俄軍防空系統與電子戰手段攔截，未造成任何人員傷亡或實質財產損失。俄方同時公開疑似無人機殘骸照片與飛行路線圖，試圖以「技術證據」強化說法的可信度。

根據俄羅斯國防部的說明，這批無人機被指從烏克蘭北部的蘇梅州與切爾尼戈夫州起飛，採取超低空、分多方向滲透的方式，意圖避開雷達監測。其中至少有一架無人機被宣稱攜帶約6公斤炸藥，顯示俄方刻意將事件定調為「具備實際刺殺或重大破壞意圖的軍事行動」，而非單純的偵察或象徵性挑釁。俄軍方面表示，這次防禦行動結合防空飛彈系統、短程防空火力與電子干擾設備，成功在不同空域分層攔截，並將殘骸回收作為證據。

在政治層面，俄方反應相當強硬。俄羅斯外交部長拉夫羅夫公開指責烏克蘭此舉是「蓄意、周密策劃的恐怖行為」，並暗示俄方將重新調整對烏談判立場，不再維持原有的克制框架。俄方同時透露，普京已就此事向美方進行通報，並表達俄羅斯將保留採取「嚴厲回應」的一切選項。這種說法被外界解讀為，俄羅斯試圖將事件升級為攸關國家元首安全的紅線問題，藉此為未來可能的軍事或政治行動鋪墊正當性。

然而，烏克蘭方面對此予以全面否認，態度同樣強烈。烏克蘭外交部直言俄方公布的影片與說法「荒謬可笑」，強調根本沒有發生過針對普京官邸的無人機襲擊行動。總統澤連斯基也出面表示，俄羅斯是在「捏造事實」，目的是破壞烏克蘭與美國之間的合作關係，並製造進一步軍事升級的藉口。烏方的說法暗示，這可能是一場資訊戰操作，意在轉移戰場壓力或影響國際輿論。

美國方面的反應則顯得相對保留。美國總統川普表示自己「對此感到憤怒」，但並未直接確認事件的真實性，僅指出相關資訊來自普京方面。這種模糊表態反映出華府在缺乏獨立驗證前，刻意避免被捲入俄烏各自敘事的一方，同時也顯示出此事在情報層面存在高度不確定性。

從整體影響來看，這起事件無論真實與否，都已對本就脆弱的俄烏談判氛圍造成衝擊。俄方以此為由宣稱將重新審視談判態度，烏方則重申任何領土問題都必須透過公投與國際機制解決，雙方立場進一步拉開。短期內，這類涉及國家領導人安全的指控，極可能加劇軍事對峙與防禦升級，增加誤判風險；但從長期來看，衝突的真正出口仍只能透過外交與政治談判實現。

因此，這場圍繞「普京官邸遭襲」的爭議，不僅是一宗單一事件，更是俄烏戰爭中資訊戰、心理戰與國際政治博弈的縮影。在真相難以迅速釐清的情況下，它已先行成為左右輿論、影響戰略決策的重要變數。

This incident, described by many observers as a “Rashomon-style” dispute, took place between December 28 and 29, 2025, and quickly became a highly sensitive topic in the public discourse surrounding the Russia–Ukraine war. Russia’s Ministry of Defense announced that Ukraine had allegedly deployed as many as 91 drones in a coordinated attempt to attack a residence of President Vladimir Putin located in Russia’s Novgorod Oblast. According to the Russian side, all of the drones were intercepted by Russian air defense and electronic warfare systems, and no casualties or material damage were reported. Moscow also released images of what it claimed were drone wreckage and flight route maps, seeking to bolster the credibility of its account with technical evidence.

The Russian Ministry of Defense stated that the drones were launched from Ukraine’s Sumy and Chernihiv regions and flew at extremely low altitudes, approaching the target from multiple directions in an effort to evade radar detection. At least one of the drones was said to be carrying approximately six kilograms of explosives, a detail that clearly framed the incident as a serious military action with potential assassination or large-scale sabotage intent, rather than a symbolic provocation or reconnaissance mission. Russian forces claimed that a layered defense combining surface-to-air missile systems, short-range air defenses, and electronic countermeasures successfully neutralized all incoming targets, and that the recovered debris served as proof of the attack.

Politically, Russia’s response was notably hardline. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Ukraine of carrying out a “deliberate and carefully planned” act, characterizing it as a form of terrorism and signaling that Russia would reconsider its stance in any future negotiations. Russian officials also stated that President Putin had briefed the United States on the incident and emphasized that Russia reserved the right to take a “harsh response.” Analysts interpreted this messaging as an attempt by Moscow to elevate the issue to a red-line matter involving the personal security of the head of state, potentially laying the groundwork for future military or political escalation.

Ukraine, however, categorically denied the allegations. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the videos and claims released by Russia as “absurd and laughable,” insisting that no such drone attack on Putin’s residence had ever taken place. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy echoed this denial, accusing Russia of fabricating the incident to undermine U.S.–Ukraine cooperation and to manufacture a pretext for further escalation. From Kyiv’s perspective, the episode appeared to be part of a broader information warfare strategy aimed at shaping international opinion and diverting attention from battlefield pressures.

The United States adopted a more cautious and ambiguous stance. President Donald Trump stated that he was “angry” about the reports but did not confirm their authenticity, noting that the information originated from President Putin. This restrained response suggested that Washington was reluctant to endorse either side’s narrative in the absence of independent verification, highlighting the high level of uncertainty surrounding the incident.

In terms of broader impact, the episode—regardless of its factual accuracy—has already strained the fragile atmosphere surrounding Russia–Ukraine negotiations. Russia cited the incident as grounds for reassessing its negotiating posture, while Ukraine reiterated that any territorial issues must be resolved through referendums and international mechanisms. In the short term, accusations involving the security of a national leader are likely to intensify military alert levels and raise the risk of miscalculation. Over the long term, however, most observers agree that a sustainable resolution to the conflict can only be achieved through diplomatic and political means.

Ultimately, the controversy over the alleged drone attack on Putin’s residence is not merely an isolated incident, but a reflection of the broader information warfare, psychological operations, and geopolitical maneuvering embedded within the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Even as the truth remains difficult to verify, the narrative battle itself has already become a significant factor influencing public opinion and strategic decision-making.