Russia accused Ukraine of sending two drones to the residence of President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, Kyiv denies this accusation.

A video that appeared on Russian social media shows a plume of smoke over the Kremlin, and Russian authorities claim that the Ukrainian armed forces tried to kill President Vladimir Putin with a drone strike.

These facts raise several questions:

Who did the attack?

Moscow points to Kyiv for what it considers an “attempted terrorist attack and an attempt on the life of President” Vladimir Putin.

But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi denies his country’s involvement. “We are fighting on our territory, we are not attacking Moscow or Putin… We did not attack Putin, we leave this issue for consideration by the court,” Zelenskyy said.

One of the advisers to the President of Ukraine, Mykhailo Podolyak, accused Moscow of “organizing” a “large-scale terrorist attack in Ukraine.”

The head of US diplomacy, Anthony Blinken, said that he takes “everything that comes from the Kremlin” with great caution.

An expert on Eastern Europe Serhiy Sumlenny blamed Russia for these events, AFP reports.

He cites the Kremlin’s swift confirmation of the incident and the release of surveillance footage from Russian state cameras as evidence that Russia “wants us to see” the event.

Can Ukraine bear responsibility?

Although the perpetrator of the attack remains unknown, Ukraine has the technical and technological capabilities to deliver long-range strikes to the heart of Russia and has done so in the past.

“It could be the Ukrainian UJ-22 (model) drone or the Chinese Mugin-5 drone, which has apparently been used by Ukraine before,” while the Ukrainian PD-1 drone is another possibility, said Samuel Bendett, an analyst. in the Russian study program at the American research institute Center for Naval Analyses, for AFP.

The UJ-22 “has a long range and can potentially reach Moscow,” but it remains an open question “from where the drones have been launched at this point,” says the unmanned weapons systems researcher.

Bendett insists that the facts are still very much uncertain.

Dominika Kunertova, a researcher at the Center for Security Research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, agrees.

“Expanding the (potential) strike range was Ukraine’s main goal in innovative unmanned (armed) systems,” she says.

And according to the researcher, “one of the main strategic advantages of using a drone” for such attacks is the possibility of denying the origin of the attack, since it is difficult “to reach Ukraine and thus avoid a direct escalation of the conflict.” “

What is the impact?

As for the damage, it is minimal: late on Wednesday afternoon, an AFP correspondent saw several people working on the dome of the Kremlin’s Senate Palace, but no damage was visible from the ground.

People also walked around the area, with no noticeable increase in police presence.

But an enemy strike on the nerve center of the Russian state would still have “a strong psychological impact,” according to Samuel Bendett.

It would also raise questions about the quality of Russian air defense.

“Russian analysts have suggested since last year that they cannot protect the entire country and that some loopholes can be exploited,” explained Samuel Bendett, although “it is not clear why this drone was not intercepted in the sky over Moscow.” AFP.

• Follow the latest events of the 434th day of the war in Ukraine LIVETEXT on HOTNEWS.RO