False flag? Analysts say Russia ‘likely staged’ Kremlin drone attack it blamed on Ukraine and the West

Doubts about the authenticity of the attack quickly started to arise as video footage began to circulate on social media purportedly showing the drone attacks.

Videos showed smoke rising above the Kremlin and wreckage on fire on the domed building of the Senate Palace within the Kremlin’s walls. Another video showed a drone exploding above the domed building of the Senate. Beady-eyed viewers were quick to say two unidentified figures could be seen climbing on the domed roof when the drone detonated.

Questions have also been asked as to why the Kremlin waited so long, hours after the incident purportedly took place, to announce it and just why Russian social media channels, usually a-flutter with talk about the war with Ukraine, Russian military strategy and leadership, had been silent about an incident that allegedly took place in full sight (albeit at night) in central Moscow.

Why, too, did videos of the “attack” only appear after the incident and, indeed, who captured the footage — and what prompted them to start filming it just moments before the drones were shown above the Kremlin?

Western officials were also quick to cast doubt over Russia’s claim that Ukraine had made an attempt on the Russian president’s life. For one, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. could not validate Russia’s accusation and that the claim should be taken with a “very large shaker of salt.”

Analysts also note that, were the incident an assassination attempt, it would reflect a poor understanding of the highest security being operated by the Kremlin, or of Putin’s habits.

“People should really stop talking about this as an attempted assassination attempts against Putin,” Mark Galeotti, a political analyst, academic and author of a number of books on Russia, said soon after the alleged incident emerged, saying this was “just playing to Kremlin talking points.”

“He notoriously rarely goes to the Kremlin, let alone stays there overnight, and there were no scheduled early morning meetings or the like there which might make one assume he might be in his (palatial) flat there,” Galeotti noted on Twitter.

“Besides, that is, I understand, quite well protected. Not quite a bunker, but something that would be hard to hit by anything unable to make some sharp turns, which would make it vulnerable,” Galeotti added.

He added that were we to presume Ukraine was indeed behind the “attack” it should be considered more of a “performative strike, a demonstration of capability and a declaration of intent” along the lines of “don’t think Moscow is safe.”

Analysts are careful to state that it’s impossible to know precisely who launched the drones. What matters instead, they note, is the implications of the “attack” and how Russia will use it at a domestic or international level.

The timing of the purported attack, coming just days ahead of the May 9 Victory Day parade commemorating the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany, has not gone un-noticed — nor was it meant to, analysts said.

The Kremlin said the drone attack had taken place “on the eve of Victory Day, the May 9th Parade, at which the presence of foreign guests is also planned.”

It added that “the Russian side reserves the right to take retaliatory measures where and when it sees fit” also suggesting the attack could be used to justify an escalation of its aggression against Ukraine.

Moscow likely hoped that the incident would bolster its attempts to portray Ukraine as an existential threat to Russia, analysts said, particularly ahead of this year’s Victory Day parade, a slimmed-down affair this year with Russian officials citing “security considerations” and concerns over possible attacks.