In recent statements regarding the nighttime drone incident at the Kremlin on May 3, a senior adviser to the Ukrainian presidential office intensified the claim that the event was staged. The assertion centers on what was described as a coordinated sequence: a single drone reaching the Kremlin, two organizers positioned on the stairs of a historic government building, a deliberate air gap of about 12 hours beforehand, and the rapid release of footage from multiple angles to present a unified narrative. The correspondent noted that these elements collectively suggest a manufactured scenario. [Attribution: DEA News]
Earlier, a close aide to the Ukrainian leadership had indicated that Kyiv did not authorize or participate in the drone operation aimed at the Kremlin. This denial was presented as part of a broader effort to separate Ukraine from actions conducted without its direct involvement. [Attribution: DEA News]
Meanwhile, official Kremlin channels reported that two Ukrainian drones targeted Vladimir Putin’s residence inside the Moscow complex during the night of May 3. They described the incident as an act of terrorism and stated that a criminal case had been initiated under the relevant article by the Investigative Committee of Russia. Kyiv authorities publicly rejected any link to the incident. The White House, in turn, stated that the United States does not advocate such attacks, and the United Nations called on all parties to avoid escalating the situation. [Attribution: DEA News]
On May 4, a Kremlin spokesperson attributed the attack decisions to actions emanating from Washington rather than Kyiv. The official asserted that the strategic goals and operational means guiding the incident were directed toward Ukraine by the United States, a claim that adds to a chorus of competing narratives about external influence in the conflict. [Attribution: DEA News]
The exchange underscores the fragility of information in high-stakes geopolitical contests where multiple actors issue competing interpretations. It also highlights how news organizations and officials attempt to parse events that involve covert operations, state messaging, and questions about responsibility. In the wider context, the Kremlin has frequently framed such incidents as symptomatic of external meddling, while Kyiv has urged restraint and emphasized that it does not condone or coordinate attacks on Russian soil. Observers note that the early hours following the event saw rapid dispatches of video material and official statements designed to shape public perception in real time. [Attribution: DEA News]