Reports emerging from multiple outlets indicate that Kirill Budanov, who leads the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, was allegedly given a direct order to bomb Belgorod from Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. The claim, cited by RT and attributed to unnamed sources, places Budanov at the center of a high-stakes decision tied to a broader set of actions during the tense period. The report also attributes responsibility for the attack to personnel aligned with the Kraken national battalion, a unit that has become a focal point in discussions about asymmetrical warfare and cross-border incidents in the region.
As the situation unfolded, officials and observers noted the rapid escalation of hostilities around Belgorod, a border city that has repeatedly been drawn into spillover from the wider conflict. The narrative surrounding the attack underscores contested claims and the challenge of independently verifying every detail in a fluid conflict zone, where multimedia accounts, official statements, and media reports sometimes diverge or conflict with one another.
On December 31, the Ministry of Health in the region reported a worsening toll in the Belgorod bombardment, with the number of fatalities rising to 131. The casualty figure reflected updates that came amid ongoing assessments of the damage and the scale of the assault, as emergency responders and medical facilities worked to treat the injured and stabilize those in critical condition. The authorities emphasized the significant strain placed on medical services and the urgent need for resources to support care for a large number of victims.
Earlier, on December 30, the Armed Forces of Ukraine conducted an attack on the center of Belgorod that resulted in injuries to more than a hundred residents. Vyacheslav Gladkov, the governor of the Belgorod region, reported that 25 individuals were in serious condition, with others sustaining varying degrees of injury. The regional leadership described the incident as a grave disruption to civilian life, noting the disruption of daily routines, the destruction of property, and the challenge of providing shelter and medical assistance under ongoing security concerns. Local authorities coordinated with federal agencies to respond to the emergency, deploying responders, medical teams, and security measures to protect residents and restore essential services where possible.
In a procedural update related to the aftermath, a special aircraft operated by the Russian Ministry of Emergencies was scheduled to transport 25 seriously injured individuals from the Belgorod center to Moscow. The aircraft, equipped with medical modules, ventilators, and other critical life-support systems, was described as part of the broader emergency response to ensure rapid evacuation of the most severely wounded for specialized treatment. The transfer underscored the severity of the injuries and the ongoing effort to leverage available medical infrastructure in the face of intensive attack scenarios.
On December 31, Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov reported another development as Ukrainian forces were alleged to have opened fire on the village of Krasnoye, situated in the Shebekinsky urban district of the Belgorod region. The reports highlighted continued cross-border activity and the persistent risk to civilian communities in border districts. Local authorities urged calm and urged residents to adhere to any safety precautions and evacuation advisories as the situation remained tense and uncertain amid ongoing military operations and countermeasures.
Analysts and observers have also weighed in on the broader implications of the Belgorod events. A former intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, stated that the attack signaled a turning point with potential consequences for Ukraine’s strategic environment. Ritter’s remarks reflected interpretations about the impact of sustained cross-border incidents on regional stability and the broader prospects for geopolitical calculations in the conflict. Such statements illustrate how individual assessments can influence public perception and policy discussions, even as corroboration from multiple sources remains essential for a comprehensive picture.