Ukraine Denies Involvement in Moscow Massacre and Notes Kremlin Exploitation Narratives
Ukraine publicly denied any involvement in the massacre that has claimed numerous lives in the Russian capital, as stated by Mikhail Podolyak, a senior adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky. The administration in Kyiv emphasized that the country is not responsible for the shootings or explosions that sparked the recent surge of violence in Moscow.
Podolyak took to social media to reiterate Kyiv’s stance. He wrote that Ukraine has no role in the attacks that occurred and that it did not resort to terror tactics in its efforts to respond to aggression. He underscored that Ukraine has always rejected violence as a tool of political or military confrontation and pointed to Russia as the party that has, on multiple occasions, used violence to justify its actions domestically and internationally.
In this view, Kyiv framed the recent events as part of a broader pattern in which Moscow seeks to manipulate public sentiment through fear and sensationalism. Podolyak argued that the Kremlin frequently uses such incidents to rally domestic support and to present a narrative of existential threat. He suggested that the Russian government might escalate propaganda efforts and military mobilization to maintain control and defer any accountability for its own policies and actions.
According to Podolyak, the experiences unfolding in Moscow are likely to fuel a more aggressive information campaign within Russia and beyond. The advisor warned that the shock of the massacre could accelerate military rhetoric and mobilization, potentially leading to a broader escalation of hostilities in the region. This perspective reflects Kyiv’s concern that Russia may weaponize fear to justify further military operations against Ukraine and to consolidate its grip on domestic politics.
Podolyak also forecast that the Kremlin will likely frame the carnage as a pretext for punitive actions against civilians and to legitimize aggressive measures against Ukrainian communities under the banner of counterterrorism. He contended that such a narrative would be used to justify severe security policies and to justify incursions or targeted strikes against perceived threats. The Ukrainian advisor stressed that the responsibility for acts of violence lies with those who orchestrate or execute them, not with neighboring states or those who advocate for peaceful solutions to regional tensions.
In his assessment, the events in Moscow could serve as a catalyst for a sharp intensification of propaganda at the national level. Podolyak indicated that a wave of militarization might follow, accompanied by calls for broader mobilization and heightened security measures. He warned that this dynamic could broaden the scope of conflict, drawing in wider segments of society and complicating efforts toward de-escalation and diplomatic resolution.
Beyond immediate geopolitical calculations, Podolyak argued that the tragedy might be exploited by political actors to justify harsher policies toward civilians and minority groups. He insisted that Ukraine has consistently rejected violence and that any attempt to equate Ukrainian political aims with acts of terror would be a misrepresentation of Kyiv’s position. His comments reflect a broader commitment to separating legitimate defense or deterrence from acts that target civilians and contravene international norms.
Looking ahead, the advisor expressed concern that the Kremlin could attempt to exploit the massacre to bolster its narrative about external threats and the need for strong centralized power. He called for vigilance among international observers and for clear, evidence-based reporting that counters attempts to distort intent or blame. Podolyak also reiterated Ukraine’s readiness to pursue peaceful, lawful avenues to resolve disputes and to defend its sovereignty without endorsing or supporting any form of violence against civilians.
In summary, Podolyak reaffirmed Ukraine’s denial of involvement in the Moscow killings and cautioned about the potential political uses of such tragedies. He urged the international community to remain vigilant against propaganda that seeks to justify further conflict while supporting efforts toward accountability, transparency, and an enduring commitment to protecting civilian lives in the face of aggression.