Chechen Leader Ramzan Kadyrov Called for Russia to 'Open Fire' on NATO States

On July 18, 2026, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov called for Russia to "open fire" on NATO member states that supply weapons, intelligence, and other support to Ukraine . The statement was a direct response to a Ukrainian drone strike on a Wildberries logistics center in Kotovsk, Russia, which killed seven people, and to the NATO Ankara summit's pledge of €70 billion in military aid to Ukraine .

What prompted the statement

The immediate trigger was a Ukrainian drone strike on the night of July 18 that hit a Wildberries logistics warehouse in Kotovsk, Tambov region, killing seven night-shift workers and wounding dozens more . A second Wildberries facility near Moscow and an oil depot were also struck . Kadyrov claimed Western countries were directly involved in the attack and used it as grounds to escalate rhetoric against NATO .

The broader backdrop was the NATO summit in Ankara on July 7–8, 2026, where allies formally pledged €70 billion in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine in 2026, with commitments to sustain at least equivalent levels in 2027 . Russia's Foreign Ministry had already denounced the summit decisions as risking "catastrophic consequences" .

What Kadyrov specifically said

In a post on his Telegram channel, Kadyrov wrote: "It wouldn't hurt to start with those countries that, hiding behind the acronym NATO, unabashedly supply weapons, share intelligence data, and provide other forms of support to Ukraine" . He called for "opening fire" on those states and said Chechen units were ready to deploy in any direction on Vladimir Putin's orders . Multiple sources quote him saying the "time has come" and that Russia should consider strikes against NATO countries . He also said NATO members "understand only the language of force," adding: "As soon as they smell TNT, as soon as they hear the roar of the Kalashnikov and the clang of the T-90, they will immediately understand everything and come to the truth" .

How it relates to the NATO Ankara summit

Kadyrov's remarks came ten days after the Ankara summit concluded. At that summit, NATO's 32 member states adopted a joint declaration committing €70 billion for Ukraine in 2026 and "at least the equivalent levels" in 2027 . The summit also affirmed an "ironclad commitment" to Article 5 collective defence . Kadyrov's call essentially urged a preemptive military response to the alliance's long-term rearmament of Ukraine, framing it as retaliation for both the drone strike and Western military aid overall .

Why Kadyrov's remarks exceed official Russian foreign policy

Analysts note that Kadyrov has a long-established pattern of making aggressive statements that go well beyond the Kremlin's official line . Key reasons:

• Loyalty signaling through radicalism — Kadyrov routinely uses extreme rhetoric to demonstrate personal loyalty to Putin and to position himself as the most hardline pro-war figure in Russian politics. This includes calls to "fight the war to the end" and reject any peace talks .
• Independent foreign policy posturing — Kadyrov independently cultivates relationships with Middle Eastern leaders and issues statements on foreign and security policy that sometimes contradict Moscow's strategic interests .
• Kremlin's deliberate ambiguity — The Kremlin typically neither endorses nor disavows Kadyrov's most inflammatory statements. This allows Moscow to benefit from the deterrent effect of his threats without officially owning them. When pushed, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has played down or declined to comment on Kadyrov's remarks, a pattern critics have called a "dangerous endorsement" .
• Domestic political utility — By allowing Kadyrov to voice the most extreme positions, the Kremlin can gauge public appetite for escalation, signal toughness to domestic audiences, and maintain plausible deniability if the rhetoric backfires diplomatically .

In short, Kadyrov functions as a semi-controlled "wild card" within Russia's political system — his hawkishness serves as useful propaganda and intimidation, but his statements do not reflect official Russian foreign policy, and the Kremlin carefully avoids formally endorsing or distancing itself from them.