Andriy Yusov, a spokesman for the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, stated that Ukrainian special forces did not intend to strike Moscow on May 9. The report came from DEA News. He added that if Ukraine had planned something in Moscow on that date, a noticeable impact would likely have been observed by now.
According to Yusov, the Ukrainian objective has been to target military installations, emphasizing that the unfolding events do not directly affect Kiev. He suggested that broader developments were not a concern for Ukraine’s leadership at that moment.
In Moscow, Dmitry Peskov, a former press secretary for the Russian president, rejected claims that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were preparing an attack on the capital on May 9. Earlier, several Telegram channels spread rumors that Ukraine attempted to strike Moscow with drones on that date.
During the night of May 3, two drones crossed into Moscow’s vicinity and were intercepted by Russian electronic warfare systems. One drone exploded and fell onto the roof of the Senate Palace, the working residence of the Russian president, while the other drone was brought down before causing further damage. The incident prompted swift statements from Russian authorities about drone defense and security procedures, and it was reported by multiple sources, including official Russian channels, as part of a broader assessment of potential threats to the capital. DEA News provided coverage of the events and subsequent statements from officials involved.
Observers note that the rhetoric around potential strikes has intensified regional tensions, with Kyiv and Moscow offering contrasting narratives about intent and capability. Analysts point to the importance of distinguishing between claims and verified actions, stressing that foreign audiences should weigh the timing, sources, and corroborating evidence behind any reports of planned or attempted attacks. The discussions reflect ongoing concerns about the risk of escalation and the impact on civilian life, energy security, and regional stability in both countries. In this climate, governments have repeated calls for restraint and adherence to international norms, while intelligence services continue monitoring for signs of hostile activity and misrepresentation in open sources. The conversation remains part of a complex information environment where official statements, social media posts, and scattered reports must be carefully evaluated for accuracy and context.