imran: russia says the united states gave the go-ahead for a ukrainian drone strike on the kremlin intended to kill president vladimir putin. kiev denies launching any attack, and washington says the kremlin is lying. what are the possible implications? this is "inside story." ♪ hello, and welcome to the program. i'm imran khan. something did happen over the kremlin on tuesday night, but what exactly is the subject of opposing views in the east and the west?

russia says its air defense foiled a u.s. planned attack by ukrainian drones, labeling it an attempt to assassinate president putin. it's threatening retaliation. kiev denies any involvement, and the u.s. says moscow is lying. in a few moments, we'll be speaking to our guests about what might have happened and the implications. but first, this report from alex baird. reporter: a strike at the heart of russian power. moscow says its air defenses shot down a drone and foiled an attack by ukraine planned by the united states. an attack it says was aimed at assassinating president vladimir putin. both washington and kiev say they were not involved. >> we don't attack putin or moscow. we fight on our territory. we are defending our villages and cities. we don't have, you know, enough weapons for this. >> i've seen the reports.

i can't in any way validate them. we simply don't know. second, i would take anything coming out of the kremlin with a very large shaker of salt. reporter: but russia is unconvinced. >> such attempts to distance themselves are absolutely laughable. we are well aware that the decision on such actions and terrorist attacks is not made in kiev, but in washington. and then kiev does what it's told. reporter: ukrainians have mixed responses. >> it didn't burn enough. it has to burn like all of our cities are burning, and burned to the ground. >> i don't think it was ukraine. the russians tend to attack their own territory and then blame us, so that the west reacts and we turn out to be the aggressor, instead of them. reporter: but, on the streets of moscow, people are shaken. >> everyone will be concerned by incidents involving drones. this is open terrorism.

>> i feel something between shock and suspicion, because there have already been reports of some weird explosions in the moscow region. it's not clear yet whether this is really some kind of military act or if it's just an act for purposes that are not really clear. reporter: russia has repeatedly accused ukraine of carrying out drone strikes on its territory. the most recent on oil refineries and fuel depots in the black sea port of navarrosisk and sylvester pole, a city in annex crimea. kiev has not taken responsibility for these attacks but its military says undermining russian logistics is part of preparations for a counter-offensive. alex baird, "inside story." ♪ imran: let's welcome our guests. in moscow, dmitry babich, a political analyst at inosmi, a russian state-owned company that monitors western media. in odessa, ukraine is hanna shelest, security studies program director at ukrainian prism, a foreign policy and

security think tank. and in berlin, ben aris, editor-in-chief of bne intellinews and former moscow bureau chief for the daily telegraph. a warm welcome to all of you. i want to begin in moscow first with dmitry babich. dmitry, do you really believe that this was a u.s. backed ukrainian strike? >> well, this is what putin's spokesman said. however, he didn't provide the evidence. but in general, let's think logically. when the ukrainian authority said they were not behind this and it was some kind of a russian opposition group that did this attack, i'm sorry, i don't believe it. because russian opposition people, most of them are sensible politicians, those of them who live abroad and those of them who live in russia, too. anyone who attacks the kremlin or anyone who tries to destroy

the architectural monuments, which every russian, not only every russian, but which the whole world knows, that person would be dead politically the next day, maybe the next hour. no one would vote for him or her in russia. so i don't believe this is the russian opposition or russian insurgent army who did it, as mikhail said in ukraine. so it was obviously some kind of a ukrainian group that did it on orders from him, maybe independently from him, that i don't know, but if it was something done in coordination with the ukrainian special services, with the ukrainian army, it is very, very likely that there were also americans involved, because americans don't make it a secret that they help the ukrainian army and ukrainian drones to do their reconnaissance flights and to do other battle jobs, you know, to fulfill military operations in the interest of ukraine against russia.

the american authorities said it quite openly. imran: let's bring in hanna shelest here, in odessa. hanna, the ukrainians do have drones. they have used drones in the past against russian targets. is there any way that this could be true, as the russians say? >> ukraine definitely has thousands of types of the different drones, both the reconnaissance kamikaze drones and the combat drones, we use all of them at the battlefield. it is not a state secret. the question is, do we have any benefits from such decisions? mikhail expressed just his personal opinion. that is not a widespread opinion in ukraine about the opposition group in russia. but from the ukrainian official point of view, that's definitely not in our interest. we are targeting the oil depots or the military object, something that will have a benefit on the battlefield. targeting the kremlin in the middle of the night doesn't make any sense, even a symbolic one. moreover, that is one of the

most protected or at least allegedly the most protected place in the russian federation. so when you have two drones coming with 10 minutes difference and with the wonderful video in such a quality that it seems to me all security services around the world became jealous about that quality, that's really raised suspicion about who did it and how it was done. it seems to me that at least in ukraine, what i read during yesterday and today, most of the experts are coming to the conclusion that it can be potentially in the interest of one of the russian security services, not naming and blaming an exact one or some groups within these services. the logic behind this, the arguments presented, first, that only them could know how to bypass the russian air defense, the second, because no significant damage, or better said, no damage was done except of the nice firework at the video that we saw.

that we saw this video only 12 hours and any news from the russian federation only 12 hours after the explosion. there's also extremely suspicious, if you look for the previous. and that can be in their interest because immediately the night attack that we had this night against my city, i woke up at 3:00 in the night from the explosions and the iranian drones. many of these iranian drones had the inscription on their wings saying, "for the kremlin, for moscow." so you understand how it was used immediately. imran: ben, i'm going to bring you in in just a second, but i want to get dmitry's reaction to hanna's comments, though. what do you think? >> well, i just wanted to say that, yes, the ukrainian side taking oil deposits and military targets. but why would russians make such a dangerous attack against the kremlin? there was some damage done, you know, the building of the senate, which is one of the most

precious buildings of the kremlin ensemble, this building was hit. they had to replace some part of the ceiling as a result of it. and as for the video, you know, the kremlin has been filmed around-the-clock. the red square has been filmed around the globe. there are cameras everywhere so absolutely it's not surprising that they had this video. as for the publication of this video 12 hours after the end of the night, 12 hours after it happened, i think it was in the interest of perception. the government was probably just afraid of panic and they were not sure how they would interpret this video, interpret this event, how they would comment on it. let me remind you that the kremlin was bombarded last time in 1917, when the bolsheviks were coming to power and used artillery to destroy resistance in moscow. imran: ben, i want to bring you in here.

you covered moscow for the daily telegraph. you know moscow very, very well. this attack, we're never going to get to whoever was responsible for it. certainly not in the short term. but, on both sides, what does this mean? >> well, it's a very confusing story, and conspiracy theories are multiplying rapidly like mushrooms in the rain. however, i think there's a few things that you can be pretty confident about. i mean, the first is the russian allegation it was an assassination attempt, which i find, well, why would you send the drones and time them to arrive at the kremlin at 2:00 in the morning when obviously everybody's gone home and gone to bed? i mean, whatever it is, it's a two to four hour flight time from ukraine border, and so you set them off at 11:00 in the morning or 12:00, not at 8:00 or 10:00 in the evening. so, there's that. the other thing is, there's been some questions raised at if ukraine's drones can reach that far, but they do, and

actually this is not the first time that ukraine has flown drones into russia. there was a wave of drone attacks at the end of february. sort of half a dozen hit various targets in western russia and the european part of russia along the ukraine border. but one of those drones got nearly as far as moscow, it came down just outside in the suburbs, and that was a ukrainian, as my colleague was saying, a ukrainian reconnaissance drone that had been packed with explosives. and so certainly they have the technical capability to do it. so the remaining question is, who did it? was it the ukraine side or was it the russians in some sort of black op? and that's where the confusion starts. because they both have winds from this. the pr effect of you know striking the wolf in his bunker all the way in moscow went down very well in kiev. everyone was sort of proud and happy. you know, yes, we're fighting back. we're taking the fight to russia, to the front door. and the other argument on the the russian side is that i've

heard people saying it's a prelude to some sort of escalation. i think a lot more credible is that it's a sort of wake-up call to shake people up. it's part of the recruiting drive into making the russians think, oh gosh, we are under attack, we have to do something so that they would join the army. and that's quite a significant theory, and so much as moscow in the last 10 days, these two weeks has been plastered with recruitment posters, trying to encourage people. it's a constant theme on the tv. and the defense minister has launched this campaign to try and recruit 400,000 people, and noticeably, it's a recruitment and signing people up to contracts, paying them not a conscription, which is what we had last september, because politically, forcing 400,000 people, men into the army, it is dangerous, because because that could cause a backlash. and so, if you buy into that theory, then having this shock of an attack in the hearts of moscow to try and persuade people to join the army actually makes some sense. imran: dmitry, the attack came at a time where russia is

looking for excuses, according to the west, to be able to escalate the war in ukraine. whoever is responsible for it, it's incredibly convenient, isn't it, for vladimir putin? >> i don't know what i alluded to, because right now the world is preparing for the ukrainian counter offensive. all the talk is about ukrainians going on attack now. so i would say that it comes at a very convenient time for zelenskyy. there were some comments in the german press, which i translated myself, saying that maybe zelenskyy is not able to put up a really convincing counteroffensive, so he compensates for it by making these attacks against oil depots and now against the kremlin. that sounds like a more possible theory for me. imran: hanna, whoever was responsible for this attack, ukraine will have to deal with the circumstances of it. what is zelenskyy and his inner cabinet, what do you think they're thinking right now?

what do you think their response to this is? are they just going to wait to see what moscow does next? >> if we speak about the ukrainian side, i would say a disruption of the oil depots is a demonstration of the weakness of ukraine. that is very much in line with the preparation for the counter offense. because the counter offense is not only about a number of ammunition and forces but also about the capabilities of supply and of the logistics of the both sides, because it is not a one minute attack. and we understand perfectly that oil and petrol, that's what our military needs, land, air all types of them, and that's where the russian federation has the certain advantages. that's why attacking the oil depots, or the ammunition storages, it is just a very good line of preparation for any type of the escalation of the military actions on the ground. are we capable or not as two

previous counter offense that ukraine can and ukraine always brings a certain surprise. i cannot say that the moscow attack or how to name it, the moscow accident, that's something of the demonstration because it doesn't demonstrate anything. however, there is yet one theory that is running around. one of the ukrainian businessmen a few weeks ago announced a competition and a prize for those who will land a drone at the red square on the 9th of may. and that is quite a significant amount for that competition and we know that more than 1,000 private drones were already registered not only in ukraine to participate in this action. so theoretically, we also can imagine that one of those who would like to try their luck in this competition, that they tried something. because, as my colleague said, 2 am, night, the kremlin, it doesn't make any sense from the

ukrainian side in terms of demonstrating escalation or provoking at another side. that's more of a symbolic action rather than anything from a strategic point of view, beneficial. imran: dmitry, do you really think a private businessman in ukraine may have given a prize and this is just all part of a competition? does that hold any water with you? >> well, i think there are many groups in ukraine which operate on their own. let me remind you that during the eight years, and especially during the two years when zelenskyy was in power, zelenskyy several times said he was going to find a compromise with russia, to make a truce or even to conclude a peace treaty, and every time, there was a powerful political force that organized demonstrations. once, they even ransacked his office. so i suppose it was not a private businessman, just one person, but there are very powerful nationalist circles in

ukraine which can organize military actions on their own and which can organize provocations. so i don't exclude the possibility that zelenskyy didn't know about this attack. also, let me tell you that basically, now russia can retaliate in the same way. and there are many radicals in russia, unfortunately, who have been talking about the need to hit zelenskyy's headquarters on kyiv -- in kyiv many times. then what the government and the military people in russia -- they are more sensible they never did it. but there was a lot of talk about it in the media. and also please notice a certain interesting thing, after visiting finland, instead of going to kyiv, zelenskyy made a surprise visiting to poland. he was taken by a dutch plane from finland to poland. isn't that telling us something

that may be he is afraid to come back to his office? imran: well, get into that in a moment. but i want to bring ben aris in here, who's from berlin. ben, what both our guests are speaking to is the changing nature of warfare? you can now make private individuals hack. they can do cyber warfare, drones are very, very popular among civilians, amongst people who just like to fly them for fun. there are ways of changing those dji drones, those commercially available drones into something a little bit more dangerous. do you think that this could well be actually, what it looks like is just a rogue attack? >> yeah, i want to pick up on dmitry's point. one of the confusing things about this is it showcases a fight between the ukraine and the kremlin. however, there is the possibility, there are these fractions a string of ukrainian nationalists, one of the theories of how the nordstrom pipelines, the gas pipelines got

blown up, was that it was an independent operation by a bunch of patriots who just went off and decided to do it on their own. and that is not -- that's a credible theory. i heard sources say the same thing. and within russia, too. there are partisans. dmitry was being dismissive of the opposition because the mainstream opposition that we know and see on our tvs is not the only opposition. but we've got a piece coming out. there are a group, sort of anarchists almost who are going around and blowing up government buildings, blowing up police stations. but it's very small scale. and it's a very fringe opposition group. but it's possible that this group actually got themselves together and played around with explosives and sent it into the kremlin, as you're suggesting. and that would be a massive escalation. i think that's unlikely. but it's still possible. and if you look at the drones themselves, i was saying about things we could be confident in. and i think we can be pretty confident that the americans were not behind this. because their entire strategy

has been to provide ukraine largely with defensive weapons. and the logic behind that is we're helping ukraine defend itself. now if the state would use highly sophisticated ones which noticeably it hasn't done, those are offensive weapons and then the argument becomes for the russians that you're not defending ukraine anymore, you're actually using it as a proxy to attack us. that's an act of war, and then boom, we're into world war iii. but that's not to say somebody else couldn't get their hands on this. and the ukrainians themselves, one of the great innovations in this world, what's new is the use of children's toys that they hung grenades underneath, flew over russian positions, and dropped them onto tanks, cars, soldiers, and this has been deadly. this has been highly effective. and there's nothing to say. you can't take one of the old reconnaissance drones which are sort of knocking around in ukraine, pack them with explosives. and that's actually precisely what we saw in the end of february. that was what the drone was. it was just an old reconnaissance drone that had been weaponized by explosive in

-- weaponized by putting an explosive in it and then flying it at russia and crashing it so that it blows up. imran: hanna in odessa, what we're talking about now is this american role as well. that the americans have backed ukraine to the hill. but if this was the americans backing ukraine with the type of drone that can get to moscow, can get to red scare, that would be an escalation. -- red square, that would be an escalation. but is there any way is there any credibility to the theory that this actually happened? anything that you've heard today that may have changed your mind? >> no, absolutely not. i have two reasons. one is a strategic reason. because in all supplies of the u.s. weapons to ukraine, it is always discussed publicly and not publicly that none of these weapons should be used against the russian federation. that is a reason why ukraine was not receiving a certain type of the ammunitions that were

requested, even for the himars. the longest range that we asked because the u.s. that i can reach the russian territory. so we are not allowed to use it. that would be illogical in this way for the u.s. to back such operation when they asked ukraine not to attack the russian territory. the second is because currently the mood in the u.s. is about not escalating and possible negotiations of it is possible after the counteroffensive or something like this. you heard it in all the statements. so why escalate and provoke something in moscow? exactly in moscow, because we understand the pr picture talked about in the beginning, that would be absolutely not in line with u.s. policy towards this war. or the current moment of support to ukraine. that is why it seems to me that also the second reason -- i said there were two reasons. the second reason is

interesting. we heard the statement about the u.s. involvement from the russian side. and very interesting the reason for this. it is each time when russia is losing. for the russian authorities, it is difficult to recognize that they can lose anything. especially for the military in terms of defense for ukrainians. for the domestic consumption, that is better to present. imran: hanna, you make a very excellent point. i want to pick up, before you move on. dmitry, this is for domestic consumption. this is putin, the kremlin just showboating? there's a lot of hyperbole here, when you blame the americans for this, right? >> i can say that of course calling the russian -- the mere idea of russia using the united

states as a scapegoat is very interesting. but i don't think you can support it with facts. it's a fact that the united states and the west in general support ukraine militarily. there are hundreds of tens -- there are more sophisticated deadly weapons that had been sent to ukraine even before the war started in february of 2022. the united states helped out the legally elected president in 2014. then the violence, then the killing started. actually, the war started there. so i think the west should be constantly reminded this is something that people in the west forget, that the war didn't start in 2022, it started in fact in 2013, when basically a move in the center of kyiv protested against the absolutely legal decision by the president to postpone the signing of the association agreement with the eu.

it was then that 38 policemen were killed. can you imagine what would happen in the united states? imran: we are we are running out of time unfortunately. i do want to come very quickly to hanna, who's violently shaking her head in disagreement with dmitry. very quickly, hanna, because i do want to come to ben, as well. very quickly, what's wrong with what dmitry is saying? >> yes, the war started in 2014, with the illegal annexation and crimea that russia was denying for many years saying that it is some civil war forever. what he called mods, i am part of this mod. part of those who have been standing at the maidan in kiev in odessa protesting against the corrupt government, the puppets of the russian federation. and russia intervened in the affairs. but there were no killings of the police people or something. the war really started in 2014

-- earlier, but only with the crimea in annexation and illegal actions of the russian federation. imran: ben, i want to bring you in here. a lot of what we are hearing right now is the fog of war's counter accusation and accusations -- americans, russians, chinese, everybody seems to be very good at it. we are not going to know the truth for decades, surely. >> indeed. both sides are playing a very important information game. so the messaging is very important. doubly so for zelenskyy. because he's entirely dependent on western supplies. most of ukraine's industry have been smashed. and so he needs to keep it in the headlines. he needs to keep the support up. he's terrified of ukraine fatigue. of course sitting here in berlin we're feeling the effects, we're seeing it.

then putin has the same problem. he's got to keep the apathetic population on board with this. the material impacts of the sanctions on rush are getting more noticeable. it's very hard to work out what's actually going on because everybody is telling you their line. we've seen this with both sides. the kremlin and kyiv have been spending it on message. that's going to continue. i think the truth a bit -- the truth of it, who is behind this attack, will not come out for years. imran: i want to thank all our guests, dmitry babich, hanna shelest, and ben aris. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again anytime by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page, that's facebook.com/ajinsidestory. and you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. from me, imran khan, and the whole team here, bye for now. ♪

- narrator: major funding for this program was provided by exxonmobil. additional funding was provided by the scharbauer foundation and the rea charitable trust. [gentle music] - e network of playas we drive past all the time and don't pay any attention to. - they're very resilient in a very hostile environment. [rattling] - loren smith: they're so dynamic. they can change so quickly. - cook: you can come out here and you think this is totally devoid of life. - smith: then when the playa become wet, it's boom!