Analysis | How will Vladimir Putin respond to ‘assassination attempt’ in Moscow?

A clear and present danger.

For more than a year now — for nearly a decade, since occupying and annexing Crimea, in fact — that is what Russia has been for neighbouring Ukraine.

But a rash of increasingly bold incidents — capped by the apparent attack of two drones Wednesday on the Kremlin in Moscow — purport to show the script being dangerously flipped as an emboldened Ukraine readies its bid to retake occupied territories.

Unmanned aerial vehicles crashing into the cupola of the Kremlin Senate building, home to President Vladimir Putin’s executive office, weren’t deadly, according to Russian officials.

But they are among the boldest and most symbolic strikes against the seat of Russian political power since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

Russian officials say Putin was not present at the time and that there were no other casualties. Video of the aftermath appeared to show part of the building’s roof on fire, right beneath the fluttering Russian flag.

However, the Kremlin press service referred to the incident as “a planned terrorist attack and an assassination attempt targeting the president.”

“Russia reserves the right to take countermeasures wherever and whenever it deems appropriate,” it added.

In other words, the attack risks ushering in a new and unpredictable stage in the deadly conflict.

Moscow says Ukraine is behind the drone attacks, though an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy denied the country’s military or intelligence services were responsible.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken struck a skeptical note as well.

“I see the reports. I can’t in any way validate them. We simply don’t know,” he said. “Second, I would take anything coming out of the Kremlin with a very large shaker of salt. So, let’s see. We’ll see what the facts are.”

Maria Popova, an associate professor specializing in post-Soviet politics at McGill University, said she sees no upside for Ukraine to conduct such a spectacular attack in Russian territory.

“It would only galvanize the Russians,” she said. “That is completely counterproductive for Ukraine. Why would the Ukrainians want that?”

Leaked Pentagon documents, however, revealed that the United States urged Ukrainian intelligence against carrying out attacks in Moscow last February, on the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion.

Russia said that Ukrainian drones were used to strike a fuel depot last week in Sevastopol that was used by Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet.

And last month, Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov, boasted in an interview with media outlet New Voice that Ukrainian drones were capable of reaching Moscow.

In the absence of its own supplies of massive firepower, agility, stealth and surprise attacks have become at trademark of the Ukrainian forces.

But Popova suggested the Kremlin drone attack could have been a provocation — a “false flag” operation planned by Russia’s security services in order to justify an eventual heavy-handed response.

Any number of hawkish Russian factions could have an interest in escalating the war, said Lasha Tchantouridze, a professor of international affairs at Norwich University in Vermont.

“If they did it, the main reason would have been to provoke (Putin) to do something more than the Russian state has done (so far),” he said.

The reaction in Ukrainian circles, and among others opposed to the Putin regime, stretched from celebration over the symbolic reverberations of the strikes to trepidation about potential repercussions.

The security breach came as the Russian state and its military forces prepare for the annual May 9 Victory Day parade through Red Square, celebrating the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany. It is something of a national holiday with deep cultural and historical significance for Russians.

Though such celebrations have been called off for security reasons in some Russian cities near the Ukrainian border, the Moscow parade will go on as planned, the Kremlin said Wednesday.

But after hearing the news and viewing the video images of an explosion above the red-walled fortress, Muscovites will certainly have one wary eye on the sky if they dare come out for the parade next Tuesday.

That could be viewed as a strategic victory.

While Putin has sought to insulate his people from the economic shocks of the war and outlawed any expressions of anti-war dissent, Ukraine and the West have been trying with sanctions, diplomatic protests and a fierce information war to make Russians feel and understand the impacts of the conflict being waged in their names.

Beyond targeting his Kremlin offices, the threat of an armed strike on Moscow is one of Putin’s greatest concerns, and among his stated reasons for invading Ukraine.

A few days before giving the order to his troops, Putin spoke of the existential threat posed by the eastward encroachment of the NATO military alliance. American cruise missiles, if launched from Ukraine, could reach Moscow in 35 minutes, he said, while ballistic missiles could reach the Russian capital in eight minutes and hypersonic assault weapons in just five.

“It is like a knife to the throat,” Putin said.

While Kyiv and its NATO backers are committed to achieving the goal of Russia’s military defeat, there are differences over how to get to an eventual victory.

Ukraine is said to be planning a counter-offensive in the coming days or weeks aimed at reclaiming occupied Ukrainian territory. Some analysts have predicted a major drive that could push Russia back to pre-invasion positions by the end of the summer.

But Tchantouridze said that western countries would prefer to see a drawn-out war of attrition in which Russian forces are severely degraded before being dealt an ultimate defeat.

Surprise attacks, whether the work of the Ukrainian state or of a group waging a clandestine fight against Russia, offer a way of getting around the limitations that NATO countries have imposed upon Kyiv.

Two drones crashing behind the Kremlin walls in the middle of the night will not bring Russia to its knees, but the mess that it makes does present Putin with a domestic challenge.

He must now decide how to react.

The sinking last year of the Moskva, a Russian warship, in the Black Sea — a Ukrainian military missile strike against a Russian military asset — was an important early strategic and psychological victory for Ukraine that was largely hushed up by Moscow.

Two high-profile assassinations on Russian territory that killed journalist Darya Dugina, the daughter of Russian nationalist Aleksandr Dugin, and military blogger Vladen Tatarsky, were attributed by Russian officials to Ukraine, but have been handled by the criminal justice system.

And last October, the day after Putin’s 70the birthday, a massive explosion destroyed part of the bridge linking mainland Russia to Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014. The bombing was an embarrassment for Moscow, but also a military setback, since Crimea is a supply hub and staging area for Russian forces.

“The main reason for the attack on the Kremlin is the confidence of Zelenskyy and Washington and NATO in impunity, that there will be no harsh response from Russia,” Sergei Markov, a pro-Russian political analyst, wrote on Telegram. “Russia has already allowed the West to cross dozens of red lines, and there is a firm belief in the West that Russia is afraid to retaliate harshly.”

The most worrisome of Russia’s red lines is the one used to justify the use of its nuclear arsenal in the event of an “existential threat” to the Russian state, though there has been no suggestion that Putin has or is considering ordering his nuclear forces to a higher alert status in the wake of the drone incidents.

Markov wrote that the use of smaller tactical nuclear weapons “won’t give much of a military effect.”

“And it will lead to real political isolation of Russia in the world.”

Some Russian political leaders have already embraced that isolation and abandoned aspirations of regaining the favour of the West.

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the hawkish deputy chair of Russia’s security council, wrote on Telegram that the Kremlin attack forces Russia to return to its original goal of regime change in Ukraine.

“After today’s terrorist attack, there are no options left except for the physical elimination of Zelenskyy and his cabal,” he wrote.

Others in Putin’s political entourage will be urging him to hold off, if not for the facts about who was behind the drone attack, then at least for the most advantageous moment to respond.

“The Russian leadership is not single-minded — though they come across as such — so they’re going to think about it first. … They’re considering a response,” Tchantouridze said.

“Even if they find out that it was done by some rogue element in Russia or in Ukraine without the knowledge of the Ukrainian command, they can use this as a measure to retaliate against Ukrainian civilian objects.”

Allan Woods is a Montreal-based staff reporter for the Star. He covers global and national affairs. Follow him on Twitter: @WoodsAllan

SHARE: