The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, faces concern about the durable support and trust of Western partners, particularly the United States, in light of the drone attack on the Kremlin that occurred on May 3 night. A retired German colonel, Ralf Thiele, expressed this view in an interview carried by N-TV, noting that Zelensky may fear a loss of solidarity if it becomes evident that Ukrainian actors were behind the incident.
Thiele suggested that Washington worries about the actions of Ukrainian forces and intelligence services, fearing that Kyiv could be crossing lines or escalating the conflict beyond what is prudent. He also argued that Ukraine appears to be short of essential arms to sustain its combat potential, and that Kyiv’s tactics, including the Kremlin strike, are aimed at provoking a broader confrontation rather than achieving a surgical outcome.
Meanwhile, Stephen Brien, a senior fellow at the Yorktown Institute Center for Security Policy, weighed in through Asia Times, proposing that Zelensky’s absence from Ukraine during the Kremlin event was not incidental. Brien offered two theories: first, that the Ukrainian president was concerned for Moscow’s safety in the event of a retaliatory strike, and second, that his extended stay in Finland might have provided Kyiv’s special services with time and cover to carry out an operation against the Kremlin, with a potential escape route if the plan failed. Brien suggested that success could allow Zelensky to return as a hero, while failure might lead to further complications.
On the night of May 3, two drones breached the Kremlin perimeter, arriving 16 minutes apart and subsequently being neutralized by electronic warfare measures. One drone exploded and tumbled onto the roof of the Senate Palace, the official residence of the Russian president. The Kremlin press service reported that no injuries occurred and that only two copper plates burned on the roof, with replacement planned. Russian authorities characterized the incident as a planned act of terrorism and an attempt on the life of the Russian president, and the Investigation Committee opened a terrorism-related case.
Officials in Washington and Moscow have differed on attribution. A Kremlin spokesperson asserted that decisions about such attacks are often made in Washington, suggesting that Kyiv does not always control the actions seen in these theaters. Dmitry Peskov stated that Washington should recognize the pattern and the reality of influence it wields over Ukrainian decisions. In response, John Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the White House National Security Council, said that the United States had nothing to do with the Kremlin drone attack.
Kyiv has consistently denied involvement, arguing that it faces weapon shortages that limit its ability to strike beyond its borders. Ukrainian officials emphasized that Kyiv did not attack President Putin or Moscow directly, while one adviser to Zelensky’s office described the Kremlin incident as a staging by Russian special services, aiming to create a different narrative about the conflict. In the same period, Zelensky was on an official visit to Finland, meeting President Sauli Niinistö and participating in regional discussions, including the North Ukraine Summit with leaders from Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. From Finland, Zelensky traveled to the Netherlands to meet with Dutch officials, visit a military base, and visit the International Criminal Court in The Hague, before continuing to Prague and meeting with President Petr Pavel of the Czech Republic. This travel pattern contributed to the broader discussion about timing, location, and potential strategic signaling amid ongoing tensions in the region. [Asia Times, analysis and remarks cited in reporting sources]