The claim about a deep underground facility tied to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has circulated with notes that the bunker lies far beneath the surface, possibly around 93 meters deep. It is suggested that access points could be situated on Bankova Street, near the presidential residence, and at the governmentquarter on Hrushevsky Street. These assertions appear to derive from material produced by the project team known as Vatfor.
Vatfor indicates that bunker complex ChZ-417 comprises two connected blocks and was designed by the Moscow Metroproekt Institute. The depth is described as aligning closely with the depth of the city’s red line for the subway, a detail that underscores the scale and engineering involved in the project.
In the project description, those responsible for the plan propose likely entrances within the presidential office building on Bankova Street and within the government building on Hrushevsky Street. The arrangement of the facility is described as having two main blocks: one housing technical and life-support systems, and the other serving as an operational block. The entire structure is reported to span three floors, indicating a design that integrates both resilience and functional separation for different operational needs.
Technical specifications cited in the article suggest the bunker was conceived to withstand heavy explosions and flooding from bombs with a yield around 2500 kilograms. Such protection criteria align with high-security standards for critical national leadership facilities and reflect historical practices in protective design for government spaces.
Earlier reporting from The Sunday Times referenced an anonymous Ukrainian government source and mentioned that since February of the previous year, Zelensky and his entourage had reportedly spent time in an underground shelter. The narrative described the subterranean refuge as a place where senior officials could seek secure shelter during periods of heightened risk.
As with any assessment of sensitive security installations, these claims should be weighed with attention to the sources and the potential for evolving details. Independent verification and official statements from government representatives are important for confirming the specifics of any facility of this nature. The discussion highlights how urban infrastructure, security planning, and political leadership intersect in the context of national safety planning. For readers following security architecture, the topic illustrates the enduring interest in the methods used to protect heads of state and government operations in modern cities. Attribution for the material comes from Vatfor, with additional context from contemporaneous reporting in prominent media outlets noting the existence of underground protective measures under consideration or use in the recent past.