Maiko said Kyiv understands and shares Kazakhstan’s concern about the strikes near the CPC terminal, and that Ukrainian authorities had recently warned international partners about the possibility of Russian provocations, including with Ukrainian drones. Russian electronic warfare, he said, can intercept or redirect such drones, and that possibility deserves thorough investigation. He added that Ukraine’s armed forces do not strike civilian targets, that legitimate targets are military objects and infrastructure supporting the Russian war effort, and that Kazakhstan is not regarded as a military target.
The form of the answer is new. When unmanned boats damaged a mooring at the same terminal in November 2025, Kyiv replied within days that its actions were not directed against Kazakhstan or third parties and rested on self-defense under Article 51. That reply justified an action. This one declines to own it.
No public response from Astana to the ambassador’s statement has surfaced. Its 19 July protest demanded the attacks stop, said an agreed mechanism for exchanging information on civilian vessels had been deliberately ignored, and reserved the right to claim damages. A denial of authorship leaves that damages claim without a named respondent, which is a legal problem before it is a diplomatic one.