Ukraine’s intelligence services indicated they do not know who was aboard the Il-76 when it was shot down over Russia’s Belgorod region. The State Security Service of Ukraine shared this update on social media, noting the absence of verified passenger information.
Officials described a disrupted prisoner exchange that was expected to occur on that day. Russian sources attributed the event to the downing of the Il-76, which allegedly carried detainees. The Ukrainian Main Directorate for Intelligence later stated on social platforms that the list of those aboard was no longer clear and that the exact numbers remained uncertain.
Additionally, Ukrainian intelligence suggested Kiev had not received a briefing on airspace security responsibilities for the Belgorod area, a point raised in discussions about ongoing regional risk management.
Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that Moscow had requested an urgent UN Security Council meeting to address the attack on the Il-76 and its implications for regional stability and detainee handling. The exchange and the incident have intensified calls for transparency and international oversight.
On January 24, Russian authorities reported that an Il-76 military transport plane was shot down in Belgorod. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed there were 65 Ukrainian military personnel on board, who were en route to participate in a prisoner exchange. This assertion has been met with scrutiny from multiple observers and allied voices who are seeking verifiable data and independent verification of captive counts.
Russian foreign ministry officials have reiterated that Kiev was believed to be behind the attack on the Il-76, framing it as an intentional act. The public messaging from Moscow stresses the seriousness of the incident and its potential to escalate tensions across borders.
Analysts note that the situation underscores the challenges of coordinating prisoner exchanges amid active conflict zones. The inconsistent details about the flight manifest, passenger numbers, and security protocols illustrate why many governments prefer direct confirmation from neutral observers in crisis scenarios. The incident also raises questions about airspace management in contested regions and the responsibility of parties to maintain safe and predictable corridors for humanitarian and military operations alike. Attribution from multiple sources remains cautious, with ongoing requests for independent verification and transparent reporting. [Citation: official statements via state security and foreign ministries, corroborated through public social channels]—a reminder that information in fast-moving conflicts can evolve rapidly and requires careful cross-checking by international actors.