Ukraine and its neighbours, explained

Advertisement

Home › Opinion › Kremlin drones and Kherson shelling: two days on

Opinion

Kremlin drones and Kherson shelling: two days on

Summary

A retrospective look at the claims and counterclaims that followed events reported on 3 May 2023, from Moscow to Crimea to Kherson Oblast.

What did the picture look like on 5 May 2023, two days after Russia accused Ukraine of trying to assassinate its president? The accusation came on 3 May 2023, after two drones were shot down near the Kremlin. Ukraine denied any involvement.

The known details were limited. A spokesman said Vladimir Putin was not inside the Kremlin at the time, and a video showed at least one drone hitting the compound. Later accounts of the incident added that no one was injured.

A pattern of allegations

The same day, Russia's Federal Security Service said it had arrested seven Ukrainian agents. It alleged they had been planning a series of high-profile sabotage and terrorist acts in Crimea, including an attack on Sergey Aksyonov, Head of the Republic of Crimea. Two Russian claims of Ukrainian plots, one in Moscow and one in Crimea, were therefore made on a single day.

Both were allegations from the Russian side. In the Kremlin case, Kyiv rejected the charge outright. For readers weighing the two claims, the distinction between what Russian authorities asserted and what was independently shown mattered: the video of a drone strike was one thing, the attribution of responsibility another.

The toll in Kherson Oblast

On the same 3 May, Russian forces shelled Kherson Oblast, killing 16 civilians and injuring 22 others. The figures point to the human cost of the war that continued regardless of the argument over the Kremlin incident.

Set side by side, the day's reports showed two very different kinds of event. One was a contested incident in the Russian capital, where no injuries were reported and responsibility was disputed. The other was shelling with a documented civilian death toll. By 5 May 2023, the first was dominating the argument over who threatened whom, while the second was a reminder of where the war's casualties were being counted.

Related analysis