Mikhail Galuzin, the Deputy Head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that Ukraine conducted a drone attack on the Kremlin on May 3 without coordinating with its Western backers. The agency TASS relayed his remarks, which framed the incident as evidence that Kyiv disregards international norms and basic shared standards of conduct in international affairs.
Galuzin asserted that the Ukrainian leadership had acted in defiance of international law, universal ethics, and common sense. He suggested that the decision to press ahead with the drones did not involve consultation with Western allies, who, in his view, were wary of provoking a broader escalation in the conflict. He further noted that none of those Western voices publicly condemned the sabotage, implying a selective or cautious approach to public denunciation among Kyiv’s partners.
According to the Kremlin’s press service, on the night of May 3, Russian authorities reported that President Vladimir Putin’s residence in the Kremlin came under a drone threat. Officials said the two drones were neutralized through timely measures employing electronic warfare and radar-based defense systems, which helped prevent any potential damage or casualties. This account emphasizes the role of Russia’s defensive technologies in detecting and countering aerial threats.
In separate public discourse, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky commented on the event, expressing concern about the implications of drone activity directed at the Kremlin. His remarks underscored the high political sensitivity attached to such incidents and the enduring tension between Kyiv and Moscow, as each side navigates the broader international response and the risk of miscalculation.
Earlier in the week, White House spokesperson John Kirby addressed media inquiries about Kyiv’s involvement, stating that U.S. officials could not independently verify reports of Ukrainian involvement. The absence of a definitive confirmation from Washington highlighted the murky nature of the early reporting and the high stakes in attributing responsibility for actions that could alter regional dynamics and relationship with the West. The evolving narrative around the incident illustrates how information from various capitals can diverge while the larger geopolitical contest continues to unfold.