According to security expert Christian Mölling, after a drone was shot down over the Kremlin, the Russian leadership will not try to kill Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. “I currently see this more as rhetoric than that it becomes a commando operation by Russian special forces,” said Mölling on Thursday in the stern podcast “Ukraine – the situation” about threats from around Russian President Vladimir Putin. He recalled that the Russians had already tried in vain to eliminate the political leadership in Kiev at the beginning of the war. “The PR damage that would result from another failure would be incredibly great. It would be a sign of weakness,” explained the research director of the German Society for Foreign Relations. Zelenskij and his confidants are permanently protected and are difficult to hit.
Mölling said it was not yet clear who was responsible for the alleged drone attack on the Kremlin. If Ukraine – as Russia claims – is the mastermind, it would be “a form of show of force”. The message then reads: “We also manage to hit the capital and the center of power, the Kremlin.” He pointed out that there had been Ukrainian attacks deep in Russia in the past, for example on an airfield for strategic bombers. “That was also a clear signal: you can’t be sure.”
According to Mölling, however, the action in Moscow was probably unsuitable for killing Putin. Given the size of the device that was shot down, the explosive power was presumably low, and Putin was not in the immediate vicinity. “The man does not sleep in this dome,” said Mölling. The expert also said it was not likely that the West would reconsider supporting Ukraine if it turned out to be the perpetrator of the attack. “Ukraine’s arsenal of such drones is probably not huge,” he said. He does not see a wave of such attacks or even a permanent threat to the Kremlin. “The question is how Washington will react to this,” he admitted. “But that too is a question of proportionality.” In view of Ukraine’s scarce resources and Putin’s comprehensive protection, he did not think it plausible to assume a “systematic intention” to assassinate the Russian president.
Mölling did not want to rule out the possibility that the action took place without the knowledge of the government in Kiev, but that it was intended to show the vulnerability of the Russian regime – and that just before the upcoming celebrations of the anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany on May 9 . “It’s possible that it was either Russian activists or people who feel close to Ukraine and started their own campaign there,” he said.
Another option would be a staging by Moscow. A fake attack on one’s own center of power could be used for propaganda. However, this presupposes that Russia has come to the realization that one’s own vulnerability “can be converted into a strength because one believes that this can create motivation and mobilization”. From the incident it can be deduced that all Russians must now rally behind Putin and that every means is permitted to counter the threat. Such propaganda could also bring advantages abroad. The primary goal is not Ukraine, but “Western societies, to which one can subcutaneously say: Somehow the Russians have the right to do it again. The Ukrainians are no different.” He fears that such a calculation could even work out. Even if the authorship is still unclear, it is already clear that the Moscow leadership made clever use of the event: “One question is whether the Kremlin flew this drone or not. But he switched very quickly.”
