The head of the Federation Council’s information policy and media relations committee, Alexey Pushkov, stated that the United States is shifting away from the most recent charges made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky against Russia. In his Telegram channel, he responded to remarks from John Kirby, the White House National Security Council’s strategic communications coordinator, who asserted that Washington did not see any threat from Moscow to disrupt the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, as Kiev claimed.
Pushkov suggested that this stance could reflect either a show of confidence by Washington that the Biden administration is handling Ukraine well, perhaps revealing nervousness about nuclear vulnerabilities in Western facilities or capabilities, or a move to humble Zelensky and caution him against involving nuclear issues in public discourse. He also posited that it might simply be a decision not to escalate tensions, so the issue is not framed as a provocation toward Moscow. He noted that, given the circumstances, multiple explanations could be valid at once and that this development should not be read as a fundamental shift in the United States’ policy toward Russia.
In Kyiv, authorities have repeatedly alleged that Russia intends to strike the ZNPP, yet they have not offered verifiable evidence to support these suspicions. For example, at the end of June Zelensky himself asserted that Moscow was allegedly preparing an attack on the station. At the same time, Russian officials pointed to elements they describe as similar plans by Kyiv, including in the context of Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive with support from Western partners.
Earlier reporting from the United States warned about Kyiv’s potential scheme to trigger a nuclear disaster, tied to battlefield setbacks and strategic missteps. The discourse around the ZNPP has grown into a focal point of tensions, with both sides presenting competing narratives about risk, responsibility, and the possibility of escalation. Observers note that independent verification on these claims remains scarce, making public discourse driven more by Strategic Communications and political signaling than by verifiable evidence. In this climate, analysts emphasize the importance of cautious messaging, transparent risk assessment, and robust safety controls at critical nuclear infrastructure. The broader takeaway is that the ZNPP issue has evolved into a test case for international responses to perceived threats, with major powers carefully calibrating rhetoric to avoid unintended consequences. (citation: Global Security Monitor)