Alleged drone attack on a Putin residence offers the Kremlin a timely narrative shift

Asked whether there was a possible wreck, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “a question of our military.” He called Zelensky’s dismissal of the attack and the doubts raised in Western media “completely insane.”

Russia’s diplomatic position “will be strengthened” as a result of the attack, Peskov said. “Our armed forces know how and when to react,” he added.

Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of Russia’s lower house of parliament, the Duma, also said that “there can be no forgiveness” for Zelensky. The frenzied coverage of the affair dominated newscasts on public television channels.

Putin has made no secret of his determination to continue the war if a deal does not meet his uncompromising demands.

The Kremlin would not say where the Russian leader was during the alleged attack. Hours earlier, he appeared in his final televised meeting with battlefield commanders, apparently intended to show audiences at home and abroad that Russia has the upper hand in the war and will take the territory it wants by force if it cannot get it at the negotiating table.

Zelensky engaged in his own messaging campaign and his meeting with Trump in Florida on Sunday was seen as a success for Ukraine despite the lack of clear progress.

Russia’s sudden accusation should be seen as “perfectly timed theater,” said Matthew Ford, an associate professor of war studies at the Swedish Defense University in Stockholm.

Putin is trying to provide “sufficient cover” for the Trump administration to pursue its hardline demands while preventing the United States from siding with Ukraine, Ford said.

What does this mean for Ukraine?

Trump said he was informed of the alleged attack directly by Putin and “was very angry about it.”

“I don’t like it,” Trump told reporters when asked if he worried the alleged attack could affect his efforts to broker peace. Asked if there was evidence of the attack, Trump replied: “We’ll find out.”

Ukraine insists there is none.

“Almost a day has passed and Russia has still not provided any plausible evidence,” Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said. “And they won’t. Because there isn’t one. No such attack has taken place.”

Trump’s reaction strikes a nerve at a particularly delicate moment for Ukraine.

Zelensky touted Monday that he had succeeded in securing long-term security guarantees from the United States that would be legally binding and help prevent a future Russian attack. Trump had offered Ukraine security guarantees for at least 15 years, he said, while kyiv asked for up to 50 years.

But later, when asked whether U.S. troops would be deployed to Ukraine, Zelensky told reporters on WhatsApp that he had discussed it with Trump, but that the final decision was up to the president. “We would like that,” Zelenskyy said. “This would be an important part of the security guarantees.”

The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment.

This is not an abstract issue for Ukraine, whose cities are bombarded almost daily by Russia, resulting in civilian deaths and damage even as negotiations continue.

The speed with which Trump repeated Russia’s claims underscores that kyiv needs to understand exactly what security guarantees it has and how they will work, said Sviatoslav Yurash, a member of Ukraine’s parliament and a serving soldier.

To Yurash and others, the Kremlin’s assertion was nothing more than another “false flag operation,” raising concerns that it could repeat this strategy in the future to violate a truce without being stopped by those enforcing a deal.

“We already made a statement when we gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal,” Yurash said, referring to the failure of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, co-signed by the United States, to protect his country against Russia’s invasion. “We need something more than a well-written piece of paper,” Yurash added.

Phillips O’Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, agrees.

“The Ukrainians cannot trust the U.S. government’s treaty commitments at all,” he said. “They already had them, and they didn’t make any sense.”