Drone attack on the Kremlin: “The information is very confusing”

After the alleged drone attack on the Kremlin, there are mutual accusations. In an interview with tagesschau.de explains military expert Loss what speaks for the various theories – and what against.

tagesschau.de: Videos of an alleged drone attack on the Moscow Kremlin are currently causing a lot of speculation. Russia accuses the Ukrainian leadership of a targeted attack attempt, which Ukraine immediately denied. Who do you think is behind the alleged attack?

Raphael Loss: I don’t know it. I find that the information is very confusing. There is good reason against all sorts of theories and few indicators that very much skew the odds as to who it might have been.

What about Ukraine’s air defenses?

tagesschau.de: In the past few days and weeks there have been increased attacks and acts of sabotage on Russian infrastructure. What do you think speaks for the fact that this could also have been a Ukrainian action?

Loess: On the one hand, it would be an enormous oath of disclosure for Russia if a Ukrainian drone got so far inland, into the capital and then over the Kremlin.

Questions have been asked on various occasions during the war about the state of Russian air defence, and that would not be a very good sign from a Russian perspective. In this respect, if it was a Ukrainian action, it was certainly a success with a great symbolic effect.

“Low Explosive Drone”

tagesschau.de: And how about looking at it from a military point of view?

Loess: The military effect of the action is very small. We know that Vladimir Putin, for example, is rarely in the Kremlin. In addition, the explosive power of this drone, which can be seen exploding in the video, was probably relatively low. And then it flew towards the flag. But symbolically that would be considered a success, just before the parade on May 9th. The Kremlin is the heart of Russian power.

Which speaks against a Ukrainian action

tagesschau.de: Ukraine has already denied being behind the alleged attack. What speaks against Ukrainian participation?

Loess: First of all, of course, the denial doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The pictures actually speak for themselves, so that from the Ukrainian point of view, an official confirmation of a participation would not necessarily be necessary. In addition, the Ukrainian leadership has not always claimed responsibility for previous acts of sabotage and drone attacks.

What speaks against Ukrainian participation, however, is that the drone should have flown hundreds of kilometers without being detected by Russian anti-aircraft systems.

In addition, the missiles that can be roughly identified in the video are different from those that Ukraine has used in the past, for example for military targets.

A false flag action?

tagesschau.de: There is speculation, especially in the social networks, about a so-called false flag campaign, i.e. that Russia staged the attack. What speaks for this theory?

Loess: On the one hand, it suggests that the drone would have gotten surprisingly far if it were a Ukrainian drone. If you have any faith in Russian anti-aircraft defenses, that should actually be pretty unlikely.

Especially since in the past air defense systems have been placed on high-rise buildings in Moscow, for example. The Russian side is quite aware that in this war one has to be careful and that Ukraine occasionally takes actions that have a surprising effect.

There are also a few oddities about how the videos and pictures of the action were handled on the Russian side: for almost half a day there was no press statement from the Kremlin. Perhaps they first wanted to clarify the information situation internally, but it seems strange that it took so long to publish an initial reaction.

And what might also indicate that it was a false flag operation: that the video shows people walking around on the Kremlin roof. But this story is not really watertight either.

Where are the videos from?

tagesschau.de: Some point out that it is unusual that there is a relatively large amount of video footage of the alleged attack. Do you think that is an indication that Russia could be behind it?

Loess: First of all, it is not surprising that there is a lot of video footage as there are many cameras in downtown Moscow. Cameras will also have been set up for good pictures of the military parade on May 9th – you can already see a spectator stand in one of the videos.

Now, however, we first have to look at what exactly the sources are: are these government surveillance cameras or private cell phone videos? And then you will certainly be able to interpret that in one direction or the other over the next few days.

“At the moment all the facts contradict each other”

tagesschau.de: What do you think speaks against a false flag campaign?

Loess: For example, the action did not cause much damage. It is difficult to mobilize the Russian population emotionally. In Russia, too, it is known that Putin is not in the Kremlin that often. In addition, it would be difficult, even for a false flag campaign, to credibly tell that a Ukrainian drone could fly so far inland.

It’s still an oath of disclosure. Of course, one could argue that Russia would like to use this to once again target Kiev and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but I have my doubts. At the moment the facts are all so strange and contradicting each other that we just have to wait for the situation to be clarified.

Action started from Russia?

tagesschau.de: Now there have also been isolated actions by non-state actors in Russia in the past. Would it be possible, for example, that Russian saboteurs with a pro-Ukrainian orientation could have carried out such an attack?

Loess: I don’t think it’s out of the question that the drone used in the alleged attack on the Kremlin might also have been launched from Russia. The pictures do not show a long-range attack drone, but rather a smaller one.

In addition, in the past few months we have repeatedly seen actions that were not coordinated within the respective military leaderships – both on the part of Ukraine and on the part of Russia.

It is now clear that one does not have complete control over all activities that take place in this war. In this respect, it may well be that this was an unsolicited action.

tagesschau.de: When do you think it will be possible to determine more precisely who is behind this action?

Loess: I think the most important thing to look at is how the Kremlin’s narrative will develop over the next few days. Whether that is actually taken as a justification for taking personal action against Zelenskyj. Which in recent months has not been done to the same extent as at the beginning of the Russian invasion.

Whether there will be renewed attempts to launch more attacks on Kiev, or whether the Russian military campaign will develop in some other direction. But of course that would not be proof that it was a false flag action.

The conversation was led by Pascal Siggelkow, tagesschau.de