War for Ukraine Day 1,404: The Day Aftermath
The plot thinned today when Trump decided to repeat the latest agitprop he got from talking to Putin for the second time yesterday after the meeting with President Zelenskyy.
Putin: Ukraine attacked my Novgorod house with 91 drones.
Russian Ministry of Defence: 18 drones shot down over all of Novgorod oblast last night.
Internet: *zero pictures or videos*
Putin: 91 drones. Trust me bro, totally happened. No pictures because OPSEC
— Maria Drutska (@mariadrutska.bsky.social) December 29, 2025 at 12:41 PM
It’s so dumb! I cant believe we have to have this dumb discussion…. Nobody attacked Putin’s house, which you would know if you bothered to ask your intelligence
— Kate from Kharkiv (@kateinkharkiv.bsky.social) December 29, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has dismissed Russian accusations that Ukraine targeted an official residence of Vladimir Putin in a drone strike. “This is lies,” the Ukrainian president.
— Kate from Kharkiv (@kateinkharkiv.bsky.social) December 29, 2025 at 10:55 AM
It is important to remember that Russia has repeatedly attempted to assassinate President Zelensky. In international armed conflict (IAC), a political leader may be a legitimate military target under the following conditions:
A head of State who is also the military Chief of Staff can be defined as a combatant by virtue of membership in the armed forces and is therefore a lawful military target in an IAC. For example, Saddam Hussein was armed, wore a uniform, determined when his forces would be deployed and determined Iraq’s military strategy during the Gulf Wars. A similar position was held by former Cuban leader Fidel Castro. In addition to being the head of State, both were also combatants by their status.
A head of State who is also the Commander-in-Chief is not, however, a combatant by status. Yet, that leader may still be targetable due to their conduct. For instance, if a Commander-In-Chief is directly involved in military decision-making, he is a lawful target in an IAC. The non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch shares this view, observing that, “political leaders would not be legitimate targets of attack unless their office or direct participation in military hostilities renders them effectively combatants…. Thus, political leaders who are effectively commanders of a state’s forces would be legitimate targets…” An example of direct involvement in military decision-making by a head of State and Commander-in-Chief includes the 1950-1953 Korean War. President Harry S. Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur for ignoring orders, demonstrating his military, operational, and strategic influence on the conduct of the war. This act fulfills the three criteria of the “direct participation of hostilities” concept as a result of:
(1) the fact it affected military operations since U.S. troops were no longer pushing North Korea’s forces back past the 38th parallel;
(2) the direct link between President Truman’s act and the heavy casualties to Chinese and North Korean troops following General Ridgway’s offensive;
(3) the fact that the harm followed by the act was specifically designed to support the U.S. and to the detriment of North Korea and China in the Korean War.
Decisions like these render a head of State who is also a Commander-in-Chief targetable in an IAC.
A head of Government like the Prime Minister of the Netherlands or the United Kingdom (UK) is not a combatant by status and therefore may not be directly attacked during an IAC as they do not take direct part in hostilities. An example of a prime minister who was directly involved in military decision-making, however, was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who gave the order to attack the Argentinian Light Cruiser Belgrano during the Falklands War. This act fulfills the three criteria of the “direct participation of hostilities” concept because:
(1) it reached the threshold of physical harm as the attack on Belgrano cost the lives of 323 Argentinians;
(2) the harm was a direct result of Thatcher’s order to attack the Belgrano;
(3) the harm followed by Thatcher’s order was specifically designed to support the UK and to the detriment of Argentina in the Falklands War.
This decision made her a lawful target for Argentina during the Falklands War.
A head of State who is also a Military Ceremonial Commander is, despite their military appearance, not a combatant by status. They fulfill important military ceremonial roles, but their military responsibility stops there. For example, the Dutch King is not an active servicemember because he had to renounce his military status to be inaugurated. He does not make any military decisions; therefore, the King has no military powers. As such he, and ceremonial commanders like him, are civilians and not lawful targets. They may not be directly attacked during an IAC as they do not take direct part in hostilities.
While we’ve seen Putin in uniform several times over the past week, here’s what the Kremlin actually says about his role with the military:
Both in pre-revolutionary Russia and in the Soviet period, the head of state traditionally has been the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Today the President of Russia is also authorized to head the Armed Forces. In peacetime, the head of state exercises general political supervision of the Armed Forces, while in wartime he oversees the defense of the state and its Armed Forces in warding off agression. The President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief are determined in the federal law ”On Defense“ (Articles 4 and 13).
In exercising political supervision of the Armed Forces, the President, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, endorses the Military Doctrine of Russia, the concept and plans for building the Armed Forces, economic mobilization plans, civil defense plans and other laws and regulations involving military organization. The head of state also endorses all arms-related regulations and the regulations of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff. The Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff are directly subordinate to the President. The President issues annual decrees concerning the draft and the reserves, and signs international treaties on joint defense and military cooperation.
Under the Constitution, the President is vested with the exclusive right to impose martial law. The legal basis of martial law is defined in the federal constitutional law ”On Martial Law“ of January 30, 2002. Under the Constitution, the approval of a presidential decree on the introduction of martial law falls under the jurisdiction of the Federation Council. If the Federation Council rejects the President’s decree, such a decree is terminated the day after this resolution is passed by the Federation Council. Pursuant to Russia’s international obligations concerning the introduction of martial law, the President shall notify the UN Secretary General and inform the Council of Europe about any deviation from Russia’s obligations under international treaties resulting from temporary restrictions on the rights and liberties of Russian citizens.
That would seem to make him targetable as a head of state who is also commander in chief, as well as the fact that he has directly participated in hostilities in the same way that Thatcher did in regard to the Falklands War.
From Reuters: (emphasis mine)
MOSCOW, Dec 29 (Reuters) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that Ukraine had tried to attack President Vladimir Putin’s residence in northern Russia and so Moscow’s negotiating position would be reviewed, but Ukraine said it was a lie.
Russia said Ukraine attacked the presidential residence in the Novgorod region overnight with 91 long-range drones, which were all destroyed by Russian air defences. No one was injured and there was no damage, Lavrov said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the accusation was a lie, adding that Moscow was preparing the ground to strike government buildings in Kyiv. He said the Russian claim was an attempt to undermine peace talks.
Lavrov said that targets had already been selected for retaliatory strikes by Russia’s armed forces. “Such reckless actions will not go unanswered,” he said, adding that the attack amounted to “state terrorism.”
Lavrov noted that the attack took place during negotiations about a possible Ukrainian peace deal and that while Russia would not leave the negotiations, Moscow’s position will be reviewed.
It was not immediately clear if Putin was in the Dolgiye Borody, or Long Beards, residence which has been used in the past by Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Boris Yeltsin and Putin.
Putin on Monday told his army to press on with a campaign to take full control of the Zaporizhzhia region in southern Ukraine after a Russian commander said Moscow’s forces were 15 km (9.3 miles) from its biggest city.
President Zelenskyy sat for an interview with Fox News before he returned home to Ukraine. The whole thing has not yet been posted. Until then, here are some clips:
Zelenskyy to Fox:
“85% of Ukrainians want peace. At the same time, 85% are against withdrawing from Donbas.
Everybody wants peace, but a just peace.”Yes. Yes and yes.
— Kate from Kharkiv (@kateinkharkiv.bsky.social) December 29, 2025 at 8:33 AM
Zelenskyy to fox:
“All the parties have to understand that the worst way is to go out from Donbas. It will be big risks for Ukraine, not acceptable by Ukrainians, and referendum will not be positive.”
— Kate from Kharkiv (@kateinkharkiv.bsky.social) December 29, 2025 at 8:43 AM
Host: Is there any indication that you see that Vladimir Putin wants peace by what he’s doing or saying?
Zelenskyy: Me not, be honest. I don’t see it, I don’t hear it publicly. He doesn’t speak about peace. He says that he can go further. It is not the signal of peace.
— Kate from Kharkiv (@kateinkharkiv.bsky.social) December 29, 2025 at 8:55 AM
Last night in the comments Jay posted this assessment by LTC Bohdan Krotevych (Ukrainian Army/Chief of Staff of the Mariupol Defenders). I want to put it above the jump and make a point or two.
On “negotiations.” It is important to finally call things by their proper names.
What russia calls a “peace process” is in fact a separate special operation against the West. Its goal is not to end the war, but to force the United States and Europe to pressure Ukraine, while russia continues fighting and preparing for a new phase.
russia has never conducted negotiations as a means of achieving peace. Not in 2014, not in Minsk, not in Istanbul. In every case, “negotiations” were either a way to buy time, a way to legalize what had been seized, or a way to shift responsibility away from itself. For the kremlin, negotiations are not an alternative to war, but another tool of it.
And this is not a “putin invention.” russia’s imperial logic has been documented since the 18th century. The so-called “Testament of Peter I” — a programmatic text of russian expansion — explicitly defined war as the only normal state of the empire. It clearly states: keep the population in a state of continuous war, allow rest only to rebuild the army and finances, use peace to prepare for war, and war to impose peace on one’s own terms.
Poland is addressed as a separate point in this “testament.” Not as a neighbor or partner, but as a state that must be systematically undermined from within. To support constant unrest, bribe elites, influence elections, introduce troops “temporarily,” and, when conditions allow, leave them there permanently. If other European states interfere, they are to be appeased by partially dismembering Poland — only to reclaim those concessions later. This is not metaphor or interpretation; it is a direct imperial instruction.
Thus, from the standpoint of russian imperial doctrine, Poland was never regarded as a sovereign state. It was seen as a space for manipulation, division, and control. That is why today’s kremlin hostility toward Poland — threats, information attacks, and talk of a “Polish threat” — is not emotional or reactive to modern Polish policy. It is a continuation of the same logic.
It is also telling that specific points of this “testament” directly concern Northern Europe and the Baltic region. russia was instructed to systematically provoke Sweden, push it toward war in order to obtain a formal pretext for territorial seizures. The Baltic direction was defined as strategic: access to the Baltic Sea not as defense, but as a mandatory condition for imperial growth. Peace in this region was viewed exclusively as a pause between wars.
The Baltic states and Sweden were never neutral in russian imperial thinking. They were always spaces of future pressure or war. That is why today’s russian military activity in the Baltic Sea, threats toward the Baltic states, and demonstrative actions near Sweden and Finland are not a “reaction to NATO,” but the continuation of a centuries-old behavioral model.
Germany was also explicitly named in the “testament” as a key object of constant interference — as the closest and most important state in Europe. The logic was simple: prevent Germany from becoming an independent center of power, constantly draw it into Europe’s internal conflicts, manipulate elites, and use economic and political ties for control. Today this logic remains unchanged: reliance on dependency, fear of escalation, “special relationships,” and the desire to preserve comfort at any cost. For the kremlin, a weak, hesitant Germany is strategically more valuable than any tank.
The only thing putin has effectively changed in this old “testament” is that he has clearly designated the United Kingdom as his strategic enemy. Where continental Europe was once the main object of imperial maneuvering, today London has become, in russian rhetoric and actions, the symbol of a force the kremlin considers fundamentally hostile — because of its support for Ukraine, its role in European security, and its refusal to trade peace for other people’s territories. That is why russia is waging a separate hybrid war against Britain — informational, subversive, and diplomatic.
Ukraine, in this scheme, is not even the primary addressee. All signals of
Saint James Talarico (he/him)
David Harsanyi, Washington Examinerمصدر …
