Sensational developments in the case of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Russian nuclear, biological and chemical protection (NBC) troops, killed yesterday in Moscow in an explosion caused by the detonation of a homemade bomb. The murder, claimed by the Ukrainian secret services, sparked a hornet’s nest of accusations and reactions on a global scale.
In the early afternoon, a few hours after the attack, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) announced the arrest of two suspects, publishing a video of the interrogation of one of them. In the video we see a handcuffed man, a 29-year-old Uzbek citizen, who admits to having acted on behalf of the Ukrainian secret services. According to his statements, reported by Adnkronos, the attack had been planned in great detail for months. He was promised $100,000 and a European passport to start a new life in the European Union.
The dynamics of the attack, as explained by the FSB, were carefully orchestrated. The suspect allegedly received a powerful homemade explosive device, placed on an electric scooter parked near Kirillov’s home. The detonation was triggered remotely, coordinated via a video camera installed on a rented car and linked to the organizers of the attack in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, as reported by Interfax. A plan as elaborate as it is dramatically effective.
The suspect was transferred to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, which initiated investigations into terrorism, murder and illegal manufacturing of explosives. “The involved Ukrainian secret service agents will be found and will suffer due punishment,” the FSB said.
According to Maria Zacharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, the “main beneficiaries” of the attack against Kirillov would be the “Anglo-Saxons”. During a briefing, Zacharova said: “We see that the Kiev regime has taken responsibility for a new terrorist attack. All these stooges of the Kiev regime are tools, ruled by the Anglo-Saxons. They are the main beneficiaries of Ukrainian terrorism.” Statements orchestrated to reinforce the Kremlin’s narrative that the West is waging a campaign of destabilization against Russia.
On the other hand, the US State Department, through spokesperson Matthew Miller, categorically rejected any involvement: “We had no prior knowledge or role in this explosion,” Miller said during a Dec. 17 briefing. However, he called Kirillov a controversial figure accused of crimes against the Ukrainian military, including the use of chemical weapons, raising the idea that, for many, the general was a legitimate target.
Kirillov’s assassination takes place in a context of growing international tension. NATO, meanwhile, took over the coordination of military aid to Ukraine, replacing the Ramstein group with the NATO Support and Training mission for Ukraine (NSATU). With headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, this initiative aims to consolidate Western support for Kiev, avoiding any cuts by President-elect Donald Trump. Despite the change, the United States remains Kiev’s main arms supplier, a position that could be tested in the coming years, as highlighted by Reuters.
2024 saw a significant increase in repression in Russia. According to the annual report by OVD-Info, an independent human rights organization that documents the government’s actions, the authorities have increased arrests and introduced new restrictive regulations, consolidating the image of a West perceived as an enemy. Kirillov’s death was promptly exploited by the Kremlin to validate this vision, legitimizing further authoritarian tightening.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has already announced its intention to bring the Kirillov case to the United Nations Security Council, accusing the West of orchestrating a campaign of destabilization. “We will seek justice for Kirillov and highlight the Western terrorist campaign,” Zacharova said, as reported by The Guardian.
The Kirillov case raises profound questions about the operational strategies of modern intelligence. The Ukrainian claim appears surprising, adopting tones closer to those of terrorist groups than to traditional intelligence operations. Why expose yourself publicly in this way, compromising operational secrecy? The publication of the video by the FSB adds further theatrical elements, polarizing public opinion.
If the Ukrainian goal was to send a strong message, the risk of counter-narratives could prove significant. At the same time, the FSB seems to want to consolidate the internal consensus, fueling the rhetoric of “Western terrorism”.
One fact is certain: the assassination of Igor Kirillov is not only a dark chapter in the chronicle of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but a sign of how much the world of intelligence has transformed into a highly mediatic and polarizing arena. In this propaganda war, how much can we trust the official versions? And what will be the real implications of this story?
