Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky once again asserted that Kyiv was not responsible for the drone attack on the Kremlin. He stated clearly that the drone involved in the incident was not of Ukrainian origin and that Ukraine did not initiate any assault using unmanned aircraft. Zelensky emphasized that Kyiv has demonstrated openness about its actions when necessary and would not conceal responsibility if Ukraine had conducted the operation. He noted that Russian leadership seems intent on shaping public perception to suggest Ukrainian involvement, but his government would voice its own position openly if such an action had occurred.
In Zelensky’s view, Moscow’s leadership is attempting to project a narrative that Kyiv orchestrated the attack, likely to justify domestic or international pressures. The Ukrainian president underscored a straightforward point: even if Kyiv possessed the capability to strike, it would not hide it behind ambiguous claims. By making a direct and unequivocal denial, Zelensky aimed to prevent any misinterpretation of Kyiv’s stance and to reinforce trust in Ukraine’s public communications during a tense period of cross-border tensions.
The Ukrainian leader’s remarks come amid persistent speculations about responsibility for the Kremlin incident. He reiterated that Kyiv did not launch the UAV and that there is no evidence to indicate otherwise from Ukraine’s side. Zelensky added that Ukraine is prepared to be accountable for its actions in a transparent manner, but insisted that this particular attack did not originate from Ukrainian forces. The emphasis was on the absence of a Ukrainian role in the assault and the desire to avoid spreading misinformation through official channels.
On the night of May 3, the Kremlin released a briefing describing a drone attack on the residence of the Russian president within the Kremlin complex. The report indicated that the attack caused no damage and resulted in no injuries, and that the president was not present at the residence at the time. Analysts noted that the incident prompted a rapid exchange of statements from Kyiv and Moscow, with each side presenting its narrative about what occurred, who was responsible, and how it should be interpreted in the broader context of bilateral relations.
Observers point out that such episodes frequently lead to a cycle of blaming and counter-blaming that can escalate tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine’s position has consistently stressed that it will not engage in hostilities that would jeopardize regional stability or international norms while also opposing actions perceived as aggression. The Kremlin’s response, meanwhile, has focused on presenting the incident as a matter of national security that required a firm pushback, a stance that echoes previous confrontations during periods of heightened uncertainty and geopolitical maneuvering. As the situation develops, both sides continue to speak to domestic audiences and the international community, framing the event within their respective strategic narratives and seeking to influence public perception and policy decisions beyond their borders.