Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, released a publication on her telegraph channel in which she reflected on the statements coming from the American administration about the question of who exactly was responsible for the attacks on the Kremlin. The message suggested a perception that Washington possessed more information than was publicly acknowledged, and it implied that there might be a deeper level of detail behind the events that had been reported. In her words, the dialogue around responsibility was part of a broader geopolitical narrative, and she signaled that Moscow would continue to monitor and respond to any disclosures with careful consideration of diplomatic channels and legal norms. [Attribution: Russian Foreign Ministry communications]
According to remarks circulated on social media and by political commentators who follow the evolving dynamics of U.S.–Russia relations, a sense of urgency accompanied what was described as a “newcomer’s” approach. The author noted that the White House appeared to act with a degree of immediacy, often stating that relevant data existed and that the information would be shared as circumstances allowed. The post posed a question about whether such rapid messaging signified a shift in how intelligence was being presented to the public and allied governments, inviting readers to consider how timing and phrasing influence international discourse. In this framing, the question arose whether certain preconditions or assumptions had been settled behind the scenes, and what the implications might be for subsequent diplomatic moves. [Attribution: public communications analysis]
Earlier, overnight on May 3, the Kremlin reported an attempt to target President Putin’s official residence with drones. No casualties were confirmed, and it was stated that the President was not inside the Kremlin at that moment. Russian authorities emphasized their readiness to take retaliatory measures if such provocations were proven to have been orchestrated from abroad. The incident was described as part of a broader pattern of attempts to intimidate or destabilize high-level government facilities, and the response from Moscow underscored a commitment to safeguarding state institutions while maintaining channels for legal recourse and proportional action. The narrative also highlighted the potential for cross-border tensions to escalate if external actors were identified as responsible. [Attribution: Kremlin press briefing]
In a separate briefing, John Kirby, who serves as Strategic Communications Coordinator for the White House National Security Council, clarified the position of the United States regarding the drones incident. He stated that Washington was not implicated in the Kremlin attack on the night of May 3, stressing that the U.S. did not participate in those drone actions and that any insinuation otherwise would be inappropriate. The statement was framed as part of ongoing efforts to avoid unintended escalations and to maintain a clear distinction between American policy and actions attributed to other parties in the conflict. The exchange underscored the complexity of attribution in hybrid warfare environments, where technical footprints and political rhetoric can lead to divergent conclusions among international observers. [Attribution: White House NSC briefing]