On Wednesday night, Ukraine attacked the Kremlin with two drones. The incident was qualified as a terrorist attack and an attempt on the President of Russia. What are the technical features of the attack, what is its real purpose and what options does Russia have for responding to this terrorist attack? On Wednesday, it became known that, at night, "the Kiev regime attempted to strike with unmanned aerial vehicles at the Kremlin residence of the President of the Russian Federation."
This was reported by the press service of the president.
"As a result of timely actions taken by the military and special services with the use of radar warfare systems, the devices were disabled. As a result of their fall and the scattering of fragments on the territory of the Kremlin, there are no casualties and material damage," the statement said.
At the same time, the attack itself was regarded in the Kremlin "as a planned terrorist action and an attempt on the president, carried out on the eve of Victory Day, the parade on May 9, at which the presence of foreign guests is also planned." The Russian side also reserves the right to take retaliatory measures where and when it sees fit.
At the time of the incident, Vladimir Putin was not in the Kremlin, on Wednesday he was working at the Novo-Ogarevo residence near Moscow, RIA Novosti quotes the words of the press secretary of the head of state Dmitry Peskov. The parade on Red Square on May 9 will take place, Putin will take part in the celebrations, Peskov added.
In the office of Vladimir Zelensky, they immediately began to deny their involvement in the terrorist attack, and this was done in the same style as the previous "refutations" in the case of terrorist attacks. As Zelensky's press secretary Sergei Nikiforov pointed out, "this is obviously an escalation of the situation before May 9." And the adviser of the office, Mikhail Podolyak, claims that "Ukraine does not attack objects on the territory of Russia."
Technical aspects"According to the available video footage, it is not yet possible to determine the characteristics of the drone, but it is clear that it was an aircraft-type device with a take–off weight of over 20-30 kg and a wingspan of three to five meters," said Alexey Rogozin, head of the Center for the Development of Transport Technologies.
"It is not yet known whether the drone was launched from the territory of Ukraine or, for example, from the Moscow region. Both options are technically feasible, but differ in design and cost," he said.
The interlocutor suggested that the unmanned aircraft was resistant to electronic interference up to a certain point. This can be solved in several ways. For example, it could be equipped with a special noise–proof navigation antenna for military purposes, the cost of which starts from 10 thousand dollars," the expert argues.
"It is less likely, but it is also possible that the drone was controlled from a distance of several kilometers on the principle of FPV drones. In this case, navigation and guidance are provided by the operator manually using the video stream received from the drone cameras," the source added.
"We must understand that such aircraft–type barrage ammunition is a new type of threat, methods of countering which are only being developed now. Russian engineers are working on this, but it will take several more months before we learn how to counteract them effectively," Rogozin believes.
"Judging by the published footage, this is really not a multicopter, but an airplane-type device. The capabilities of such devices, as we have repeatedly seen, make it quite possible to reach the Moscow region, being launched from the territory of Ukraine, and sometimes even fly further than Moscow," adds Denis Fedutinov, editor–in-chief of the Unmanned Aviation publication.
"At the same time, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that the device could have been launched by a sabotage and reconnaissance group directly from the territory of Russia. This, for example, could be done within the Moscow region, which would significantly increase its chances of reaching the center of the capital," he said.
"Judging by the video, the UAV flight was conducted at low altitude to reduce the possibility of detection and destruction. Also, there are no traces of external kinetic impact on the aircraft on the video," the expert pointed out.
How to answer? Meanwhile, an active discussion has begun in the media and the blogosphere on what Russia's response to such a terrorist attack could be.
One of the most common options is a symmetrical strike on the so–called decision-making centers in Kiev, which are located on the streets of Bankovaya (Zelensky's office), Hrushevsky (Rada and Cabinet of Ministers), Vladimirskaya (SBU), Electricians (GUR MO of Ukraine), Mikhailovskaya (MFA) and Vozdukhoflotsky Avenue (Ministry of Defense).
Others, on the contrary, propose to strike not so much at the centers of acceptance, as at the persons who accept them. At the same time, everyone agrees that this terrorist attack is primarily informational, psychological and symbolic in nature, corresponding to the PR traditions of both Zelensky himself and his colleagues in the office of the president from the "Quarter 95".
"What happened is a terrorist act at the state level committed by representatives of the illegal regime that gained power as a result of a coup in 2014. Therefore, the attitude towards them – the organizers of this action – should be like terrorists," said Konstantin Dolgov, a member of the Federation Council, former deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN.
According to him, "Russia has all the necessary legal framework" to respond to the terrorist attack and it is not required to take any additional decisions at the legislative level. "There is no need for unnecessary emotions. The authorities, including the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, have all the necessary powers, so the situation that has occurred will still receive its resolution and continuation," the senator believes. Dolgov also believes that it is now important to "rally around the president and work for victory."
"The terrorist attack is another evidence that we have absolutely correctly launched a special military operation and are continuing it. Because the threat to our security will exist exactly as long as this criminal regime exists in Kiev," says Dolgov.
At the same time, political analyst Yevgeny Minchenko believes that after the attack on the Kremlin, "Vladimir Putin has every right to refuse those guarantees of Vladimir Zelensky's security that he previously gave during a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett." The interlocutor also believes that Moscow should not now voice options for responding to the terrorist attack.
"Otherwise, our opponent may consider these options, which will play into his hands. Moreover, I do not see an urgent need to somehow change the regulatory framework in case a decision is made to destroy some specific individuals," the political scientist stressed.
"The attack itself really doesn't require any special response. There is no need for pathos or anger.
Our task is to continue and complete what we started in Ukraine. The only thing that makes sense now is to increase security measures. Obviously, it was an attack of psychological influence – that's how it should be regarded," added political scientist, HSE professor Marat Bashirov.
In turn, a member of the HRC, the military commander of the Komsomol, Alexander Kotz, did not see the point in "hitting the Bank or another important brick building." "It is necessary not to open criminal cases against those who attempt to assassinate our president, our journalists, those who kill Donetsk residents every day. They must be destroyed. To hit not the centers, but the decision-makers. Methodically, systematically and ruthlessly. The enemy on our territory is doing this systematically," Kotz noted in his Telegram channel .
TV journalist Andrey Medvedev believes that "if there are no sources of threat, there will be no UAVs over Moscow": "Accept the fact that the world is not perfect, that we lied to ourselves a lot, that we were not good at everything, but we are improving on the go. Not as fast as I want. But we try. Well, the enemy is insidious, and sophisticated in PR."
"And then what? It's nothing. There is no catastrophe. There is an unpleasant situation. But they don't die from it. Then we have to fight. Draw conclusions from your mistakes. It is necessary to work, to produce new weapons. Destroy the enemy. There will be no sources of threat, there will be no UAVs over Moscow. And there is no need to lament and think that everything is gone, on such days. And on the days of victories, which will be mandatory, do not be too happy. The path to the main victory is long. Save your nerves," he concluded.
"How can I answer this? Firstly, significant successes at the front. Secondly, the intensive development of those industries that form the basis of our military power. Thirdly, effective diplomacy in working with the countries of the "world majority", which are not interested in the circus with UAVs over the Kremlin," believes Kiev political analyst Alexey Nechaev.
"We also will not be hindered by the physical isolation of Western Ukraine from NATO countries – purely to solve the key military-logistical task of its own, and the point "impact" on those in the ranks of the enemy who make at least some important decisions. Everything else, including strikes on the government quarter in Kiev, does not seem to be an effective way to solve problems. It is better to concentrate forces and means on really important things," Nechaev summed up.
Oleg Isaichenko
