The Russian Foreign Ministry has attributed responsibility for the attack on writer Zakhar Prilepin not only to Ukraine, but also to Western actors, with emphasis on the United States. This assessment frames the incident as part of a broader pattern in which ideological opponents are targeted; the ministry’s spokespersons have linked Prilepin’s case to a strategy they say has been supported by Washington and actively deployed in Ukraine since 2014. The ministry characterized the attack as a clear manifestation of this ongoing approach and urged international bodies to acknowledge the severity of such acts.

In its official statements, the Russian diplomatic service described the Prilepin incident as part of a systematic effort to suppress voices viewed as oppositional to certain political narratives. The ministry argued that the suppression of these voices — which, in their view, gained prominence through Western backing and influence in Ukraine — represented a recurring theme in the geopolitical arena surrounding Kyiv. These remarks were presented as an explanation for why Prilepin became a target and why the attack is seen as more than an isolated event.

Alongside these claims, the ministry criticized what it called the silence of international organizations regarding the Prilepin incident. The statement asserted that the lack of attention from major international bodies was unacceptable and urged these organizations to address what it described as a troubling trend of violence against public figures and authors who express certain viewpoints. The officials argued that foreign watchers should treat such cases with the same gravity they afford other acts of political violence.

According to reports from the scene, an Audi Q7 carrying Zakhar Prilepin was struck on a highway in the Borsky district of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Medical personnel transported the writer to a hospital, where he was treated for injuries to both legs. It was reported that his daughter was in the vehicle at the time, and local authorities indicated that Prilepin managed to exit the car minutes before the explosion. The car’s driver died at the scene, underscoring the deadly nature of the attack and the sudden danger faced by those nearby.

Investigators later provided details about the device and its placement. They stated that the explosive was located in the lower portion of the engine bay, and preliminary assessments indicated a mass consistent with a heavy explosive charge. Officials did not disclose specific technical specifications publicly, but described the detonation as powerful enough to cause severe injuries to the occupants and substantial damage to the vehicle. The timing of the blast, the partial evacuation by Prilepin, and the presence of a family member inside the car added to the complexity of the safety and security implications surrounding the case.

News outlets and security services reported that Prilepin had recently returned from areas controlled or influenced by factions in Eastern Ukraine to the Nizhny Novgorod region. The sequence of events surrounding the voyage, the choice of transportation, and the moment of the explosion are being reviewed to understand potential vulnerabilities and to determine whether additional individuals or interests were involved. Investigators indicated that the investigation would consider multiple lines of inquiry, including possible links to political threats, organized violence, or other motivations tied to Prilepin’s public statements and literary work. Attribution remains a matter for formal confirmation through evidence gathered by investigators and collaborating agencies, who are compiling testimonies, reviewing surveillance footage, and examining forensic findings.