In a striking turn of events, the Russian military neutralized seven of its own drones mid-flight over Ukraine’s Mykolaiv region, following an order from President Vladimir Putin to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
Pantsir-S1 intended for export to Iraq was seen in East Ukraine
Photo credit: MoD of Russia
This directive came shortly after a phone call between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a statement from Russia’s Ministry of Defense. The drones, originally targeting energy facilities linked to Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, were downed by Russian air defenses—six by Pantsir missile systems and one by a fighter jet.
While the exact timing of the Putin-Trump conversation remains unspecified, the Kremlin described it as a detailed exchange focused on reducing hostilities, raising questions about whether this marks a shift in Russia’s military strategy or a temporary gesture tied to broader negotiations.
🇷🇺 At the moment Putin's order to temporarily halt strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure was received, 7 Russian drones were already in the air. All were shot down by Russian forces: 6 by Pantsir systems, 1 by a fighter jet. — Russian MoD pic.twitter.com/q85hVtdcpq
— Russian Market (@runews) March 19, 2025
The Russian Defense Ministry framed the neutralization of the drones as a direct response to Putin’s command, emphasizing that the targets were energy sites in Mykolaiv, a southern region critical to Ukraine’s industrial output.
Ukrainian officials have yet to confirm the specifics of the intended targets, but the area has been a frequent focus of Russian strikes aimed at disrupting power supplies and military logistics.
The ministry’s statement noted that the decision to shoot down the drones came after they were already airborne, suggesting a rapid shift in orders that caught operational units off guard.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later reinforced this narrative, telling reporters that Putin’s directive was “immediately implemented” and that information about the cessation of energy strikes was “widely available.” Peskov declined to elaborate on the details of the Trump-Putin call, leaving room for speculation about its influence on the Kremlin’s actions.
Ukrainian military sources, cited by the Kyiv Independent, reported no confirmed Russian strikes on energy targets in Mykolaiv on March 18 itself, aligning with Moscow’s claim of compliance.
This absence of immediate strikes contrasts with Russia’s broader campaign against Ukrainian energy sites, suggesting that Putin’s directive may have been adhered to in this instance, though skepticism persists given subsequent events elsewhere in Ukraine.
Across the border, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered a contrasting perspective. Speaking via Telegram, he reported that Russian forces launched around 40 Shahed drones across multiple regions that same night, with some hitting civilian infrastructure, including a hospital in Sumy.
“It is precisely such night attacks by Russia that destroy our energy, our infrastructure, the normal life of Ukrainians,” Zelenskyy wrote, casting doubt on the sincerity of Russia’s reported ceasefire on energy targets.
He suggested that the timing of the attacks—hours after the Putin-Trump discussion—undermined any claims of de-escalation, arguing that Russia’s actions spoke louder than its words. Ukrainian air defenses, he added, managed to intercept many of the drones, though damage was still reported in several areas.
The White House provided its own account of the Trump-Putin conversation, stating that the two leaders agreed to initiate a ceasefire on energy and infrastructure attacks as a starting point for broader peace talks.
According to a White House release, the discussion also touched on technical negotiations for a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, hinting at a multi-faceted approach to reducing hostilities. Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One shortly after, described the talks as “good and productive,” expressing optimism about ending the war.
“There’s a very good chance of putting an end to it,” he said, though he offered no specifics on timelines or conditions. The Kremlin, however, clarified that Putin did not commit to a full 30-day ceasefire proposed by the U.S. and Ukraine, framing any pause as potentially advantageous to Kyiv’s forces—a stance that underscores lingering tensions in the diplomatic process.
Adding complexity to the narrative, Ukraine launched its own drone strike on Russia’s Kavkazskaya oil pumping station in Krasnodar Krai overnight into March 19, just hours after the Putin-Trump call.
According to the Kyiv Independent and Russian regional authorities, the attack targeted a key facility in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium system, which transships up to 6 million metric tons of oil annually for export via Novorossiysk.
The strike damaged a pipeline connecting storage tanks, sparking a fire that covered approximately 20 square meters, as reported by Krasnodar’s operational headquarters. No casualties were noted, but 30 personnel were evacuated, and the station temporarily suspended operations.
Russian Telegram channels, including Astra, circulated footage of the blaze, while Ukraine’s military has not officially commented on the strike.
The Kavkazskaya facility, located near the previously targeted Kropotkinskaya station, underscores Ukraine’s ongoing campaign to disrupt Russia’s energy exports and military logistics, a strategy intensified in recent months with attacks on refineries and depots across southern Russia.
Analysts have been quick to weigh in on the implications of these developments. Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested that Russia’s decision to down its own drones could be a tactical move to signal flexibility without sacrificing strategic goals.
“This might be a way for Moscow to test the waters—show they’re open to dialogue while keeping pressure on the battlefield,” Kofman told a Washington-based news outlet. He cautioned, however, that such actions do not necessarily indicate a broader retreat from Russia’s campaign to degrade Ukraine’s energy grid, a key component of its war effort.
On the Ukrainian side, military expert Mykola Bielieskov from the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv noted that the Mykolaiv region’s energy facilities remain vital to sustaining Ukraine’s defense industry. “Even a temporary halt could give us breathing room, but we’ve seen Russia break promises before,” he said in an interview with European media.
At least one Ukrainian UAV struck the Kavkazskaya oil transshipment point in Kuban, Krasnodar Krai.
The Kavkazskaya oil transshipment point is designed for transshipment of Russian oil by railway and into the Caspian Pipeline Consortium JSC pipeline system. It transfers an… pic.twitter.com/bsE9saY1Ug
— AMK Mapping 🇺🇦🇳🇿 (@AMK_Mapping_) March 19, 2025
The backdrop to this incident is a war that has seen both sides increasingly target each other’s energy infrastructure. Russia has launched hundreds of missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian power plants and substations since its full-scale invasion began in February 2022, aiming to cripple the country’s economy and military capacity.
Ukraine, in turn, has escalated its own drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and energy sites, including the recent Kavkazskaya strike and an earlier February attack on the Kropotkinskaya station, which disrupted oil transit for weeks.
The Russian Defense Ministry labeled the Krasnodar attack a “provocation” by Kyiv, accusing Ukraine of undermining U.S.-led peace initiatives.
Ukrainian officials countered that such strikes are legitimate acts of self-defense, aimed at disrupting Russia’s war machine. This tit-for-tat dynamic has complicated efforts to broker a ceasefire, with each side accusing the other of bad faith.
Public statements from key figures reveal the fragile state of trust between the warring parties. Zelenskyy, in his Telegram post, emphasized Ukraine’s willingness to cooperate on de-escalation, offering to provide a list of energy facilities to clarify protected targets.
“We must continue to put pressure on Russia for the sake of peace,” he urged, signaling openness to dialogue but skepticism about Russia’s intentions.
Meanwhile, Peskov’s comments hinted at frustration with Ukraine’s response, noting that Kyiv had not reciprocated by halting its own attacks on Russian infrastructure. “The information was there, but Kyiv didn’t act,” he told reporters, suggesting that Ukraine’s actions could jeopardize any goodwill from Moscow.
The international community has watched these events with cautious interest. European leaders, including German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, have expressed doubts about Russia’s commitment to a lasting ceasefire.
Speaking after a G7 meeting, Baerbock described Putin’s response to U.S. proposals as “at best a delaying tactic,” pointing to his history of sidestepping negotiations. French President Emmanuel Macron, however, struck a more hopeful note, telling Fox News that a truce could be achievable “in the weeks to come” following his own discussions with Trump.
The disparity in these assessments reflects the uncertainty surrounding Russia’s next moves and the viability of U.S.-mediated talks.
Data from the conflict underscores the stakes involved. Ukraine’s Energy Ministry has reported that over 50% of its power generation capacity has been damaged or destroyed by Russian strikes since the war began, forcing widespread blackouts and straining civilian life.
On the Russian side, Ukraine’s drone campaign has disrupted at least 10% of Russia’s oil refining capacity, according to estimates from the Atlantic Council, a think tank tracking the war’s economic impact. These figures highlight why energy infrastructure has become a central battleground, making any pause in attacks a significant—if provisional—step.
The Putin-Trump call itself is part of a broader diplomatic push by the U.S. to end the conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions.
Trump has positioned himself as a peacemaker, repeatedly claiming he could resolve the war quickly—a promise he reiterated to reporters. “We’re trying to end that war. It’s a war that would have never happened if I were president,” he said, echoing a campaign talking point.
Critics, including some U.S. lawmakers, have questioned whether his approach might pressure Ukraine into concessions, such as territorial losses or neutrality on NATO membership, demands Russia has long insisted upon. Ukrainian officials, for their part, have stressed that any deal must preserve the country’s sovereignty and independence.
As the situation unfolds, both sides continue to maneuver on and off the battlefield. Russia’s neutralization of its drones has not stopped its broader offensive, with the Defense Ministry reporting the downing of 57 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory in the same period.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has kept up its air defenses and retaliatory strikes, with Zelenskyy noting active operations across multiple regions and the Kavkazskaya attack signaling no letup in Kyiv’s strategy.
The coming days may reveal whether this incident was a fleeting anomaly or the beginning of a more sustained pause. For now, the war’s trajectory hinges on the delicate interplay of military actions and diplomatic words, with the world waiting to see if promises made over the phone can translate into peace on the ground.
***
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Twitter pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.