Attack on the Kremlin: How Russia could respond

On the night of May 3, Ukraine attacked the Kremlin with two drones. The case was classified as a terrorist attack and assassination attempt on Russia's president. What are the technical features of the attack, what was its real goal and how can Russia respond to the attack?

On Wednesday, the press service of the Russian president announced that the Kiev regime tried to attack the president's Kremlin residence with drones. "As a result of timely actions by members of the military and special services, the drones were incapacitated using the means of electronic warfare. As a result of their crash and the dispersal of shrapnel on the territory of the Kremlin, no injuries or damage to property were caused," the message continued.

The attack itself was classified as a "planned terrorist action and an assassination attempt on the president in the run-up to Victory Day on May 9, which will also be attended by foreign guests." The Russian side reserved the right to take response measures where and when it deems it necessary.

During the incident, Vladimir Putin was not in the Kremlin, but worked in his residence Novo-Ogaryovo near Moscow. This was stated by the press secretary of the Russian leader, Dmitry Peskov, to the RIA Novosti news agency. He added that the parade on Red Square would take place on May 9 and that Putin would take part in the celebrations.

Vladimir Zelensky's government immediately began to deny its involvement in the terrorist attack. Zelensky's press secretary Sergei Nikiforov said it was an attempt to escalate the situation in the run-up to May 9. The adviser to the Ukrainian presidential office, Mikhail Podolyak, claimed that Ukraine does not attack objects on Russian territory.

Technical aspects

"From the existing recordings, it is not possible to determine the exact technical data of the drone. Nevertheless, it is clear that it was an aircraft-like device with a flight mass of over 20-30 kilograms and a wingspan of three to five meters," explained the head of the Center for the Development of Transport Technologies Alexei Rogozin.

"So far, it is not known whether the drone was launched from Ukrainian territory or, for example, from the outskirts of Moscow. Both variants are technically feasible, but differ in terms of design and cost," he explained.

The expert suspected that the unmanned aerial vehicle was resistant to radio interference signals until a certain time. "This can be achieved in several ways. For example, the drone could have been equipped with a special military interference suppression antenna, the cost of which starts at $ 10,000," he explained.

"Less likely, but also possible, is that the drone was controlled from a distance of a few kilometers according to the principle of FPV drones. In this case, the operator steers the drone by hand by means of video transmission, which is made possible by the drone's cameras," he added.

"One should understand that such 'loitering weapons' or kamikaze drones are a new kind of threat. Ways to combat them are still being worked out. Russian engineers are working on it, but it will take several months before we can fight them effectively," Rogozin said.

"According to the published footage, it is actually not a multicopter, but an aircraft-like apparatus. The technical characteristics of such devices, as we have seen several times, allow them to reach Moscow or even fly farther than Moscow during a take-off from Ukrainian territory," added Denis Fedutinov, editor-in-chief of the magazine Bezpilotnaya aviatsiya [Unmanned Aviation].

"At the same time, one should not exclude the possibility that the drone was actually launched from Russian territory by a sabotage group. This could have happened, for example, within the Moscow region and would significantly increase the chances of reaching the center of the capital," he noted.

"Judging by the video, the drone flew at a low altitude in order to minimize the likelihood of its detection and destruction. Nor are there any traces of an external kinetic impact on the aircraft visible on the video," the expert explained.

How to react?

Meanwhile, a lively discussion began in the media and blogs about what Russia's response to such a terrorist attack should be. One of the most widespread possibilities would be a symmetrical attack on so-called decision-making centers in Kyiv, which are located on Bankovaya (Zelensky administration), Grushevskogo (Rada and Cabinet of Ministers), Vladimirskaya (SBU domestic intelligence service), Elektrikov (Ukrainian military intelligence), Mikhailovskaya (Foreign Ministry) and Vozdukhoflotsky Prospekt (Ministry of Defense) streets.

Others, on the other hand, suggest attacks not against decision-making centers, but against people who make decisions. At the same time, everyone agrees that such a measure would have a more psychological and symbolic character, and is also in the PR traditions of both Zelensky himself and his former colleagues from Studio Kvartal 95.

"What happened was a state-level terrorist attack perpetrated by representatives of an illegal regime that came to power as a result of the 2014 coup d'état. That is why the organizers of this action must be treated like terrorists," said Konstantin Dolgov, a member of the Federation Council and former Russian ambassador to the UN.

According to Dolgov, Russia has all the necessary legal bases to respond to the attack. Therefore, there is no need to take additional decisions at the legislative level. "There is no need for superfluous emotions here. The government, including the commander-in-chief, has all the necessary powers, so there will still be an aftermath and an answer to the situation that has arisen," the senator promised. At the same time, Dolgov expressed the opinion that it was now necessary "to stand by the president and work for victory."

"The attack is further proof that we have started and are continuing the special military operation quite rightly. Because a threat to our security will exist as long as this criminal regime in Kiev exists," Dolgov said.

At the same time, political scientist Yevgeny Minchenko expressed the opinion that after the attack on the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin "has every right to withdraw the security guarantees for Vladimir Zelensky, which he gave earlier in a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett." Minchenko also advises that Moscow should not name the options for responding to the attack at this time.

"Otherwise, the adversary could learn about these opportunities and take advantage of them. Moreover, I do not see an urgent need to adjust the legal framework when the decision is made on the elimination of specific persons," the political scientist emphasized.

"The attack itself, in fact, does not require a special response. There is no need for pathos or anger here. Our task now is to continue and finish what we started in Ukraine. Obviously, this was a psychological attack and that's exactly how it should be evaluated," added Marat Bashirov, a political scientist and lecturer at the Moscow Higher School of Economics.

Aleksandr Koz, a member of the Human Rights Council and war correspondent for Komsomolskaya Pravda, also sees no point in "attacking Bankovaya or other important brick buildings." On his Telegram channel, he wrote:

"There is no need to initiate criminal proceedings against those who carry out assassination attempts on our president or journalists, or kill residents of Donetsk on a daily basis. They must be destroyed. Not attacking decision-making centers, but decision-makers. Methodical, planned and merciless. The enemy is systematically doing this on our territory."

According to TV journalist Andrei Medvedev, "there would be no drones over Moscow if there were no sources of danger." He wrote: "Take note of the fact that the world is not ideal, that we have often deceived ourselves, that we are not good at everything, but we are getting better. Not as fast as you'd like. But we make an effort. The enemy is deceitful and adept at propaganda."

"What now? Nothing. There is no catastrophe. There is an unpleasant situation. But you don't die from it. You have to keep fighting, draw conclusions from your own mistakes, work, produce new weapons, destroy the enemy. If there are no sources of threat, then there are no drones over Moscow. In such days, one should not resign oneself and think that all is lost. And in the days of victory, which are sure to come, one should not rejoice too much. The road to victory is a long one. Spare your nerves," he summed up.

"How to answer? Firstly, with significant successes at the front. Secondly, with an intensive development of those industries that form the basis of our military power. Thirdly, with effective diplomacy in relation to the states of the 'world majority' that are not very interested in this circus with drones over the Kremlin," advised Kiev political scientist Alexei Nechayev.

"In addition, physical isolation of Western Ukraine from NATO countries – as part of solving the most important military-strategic tasks of the military operation – would be helpful. The same applies to the selective 'influence' on opponents who make important decisions. Anything else, including possible attacks on the Kiev government district, does not seem to be an effective method of solving problems. It is better to concentrate forces and resources on the really important things," Nechayev summed up.