Reports emerged that Ukrainian authorities were alleged to have targeted Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. The information, attributed to a New York Times article cited by TASS, centers on a claim that an operation was organized while Gerasimov allegedly remained at front lines. The publication does not provide a concrete date or additional verifiable details about the asserted incident, leaving room for questions about timing, scope, and the exact actors involved. (Source: The New York Times cited via TASS)
According to the NYT material, Washington opposed the Ukrainian plan to kill Gerasimov, expressing concerns that such an action could escalate the broader conflict. The report suggests that U.S. officials initially withheld intelligence about Gerasimov’s movements from Kyiv and later demanded the plan be canceled. In the narrative, officials were told the attack had already begun, painting a picture of a rapid sequence of events with diplomatic friction at its core. These elements reflect the tenuous line between covert operations and public diplomacy in a high-stakes war environment. (Source: The New York Times cited via TASS)
In a separate line of reporting, the same NYT outlet referenced by TASS has described how other high-profile plots have unfolded in parallel, underscoring the fragility of intelligence sharing and the political pressures that can influence such efforts. The NYT notes that typical channels for coordination may be strained when national security considerations intersect with alliance politics, potentially affecting decisions at the highest levels. These passages emphasize the broader pattern of concern about escalation and the risks of miscalculation when states pursue punitive or preventive measures. (Source: The New York Times cited via TASS)
The article also revisits historical episodes involving attempted orchestrations against other European leaders, illustrating a recurring theme: the tension between covert actions and legal or moral constraints faced by participating states. The NYT summaries cited in the report describe a climate where conspiratorial movements sometimes rely on informal agreements to proceed, even amid intense scrutiny from partners and allies. This contextual background helps readers understand why official responses often include rapid diplomatic messaging, intelligence assessments, and, at times, public statements designed to deter or deconflict similar plans. (Source: The New York Times cited via TASS)
Overall, the coverage points to a broader narrative about how foreign operations are discussed, monitored, and sometimes aborted under the pressure of alliance politics, risk assessment, and public accountability. While the specifics of the Gerasimov case remain unconfirmed in many respects, the reported sequence—organization, concern from Washington, and eventual retreat or delay—highlights the delicate balance that governments try to maintain between deterring aggression and avoiding a wider conflagration. It also underscores the caution that intelligence communities exercise when dealing with sensitive targets and the potential consequences of disclosure in the international arena. (Source: The New York Times cited via TASS)