Three years since the drone attack on the Kremlin, in which Kasyanov’s unit was not involved
The third anniversary of the drone attack on the Kremlin – an operation that was initiated by volunteers rather than a specific unit.
Today is 3 May. It has been three years since the first two drones flew into the Moscow Kremlin. Yuri Kasyanov takes sole credit for this operation wherever he goes, and complains that it was (presumably) precisely because of such daring actions that his unit was disbanded. In reality, none of this is true. Spoiler alert – Kasyanov himself dismantled the ‘unit that bombed Moscow’.
As a direct participant in those events, I have a duty to defend the truth.
So, the bare facts. The first drone attack on the Kremlin took place on the night of 3 May 2023. Two drones exploded above the dome of the Senate Palace, which the Russian side described as an assassination attempt on Putin and a ‘terrorist act’, blaming Ukraine. This was the first such incident since the Second World War. The drones were launched between 9 pm and 11 pm the previous day, and within a few hours they had reached their target.
Ukraine officially denied any involvement. In Russia itself, for example, Igor Girkin-Strelkov put forward the theory that it was an internal sabotage operation. Many people in Ukraine were also peddling conspiracy theories. Imagine what it was like for me to read all that.
In reality, it was a private initiative by our team.
There was no order from the higher-ups. It was the work of volunteers waging their own personal war.
There was a lot of audacity in this operation, and not much in the way of technology. The drones weren’t exactly magical. They were, as they say in certain circles, ‘hat-flyers’ – that is, cheap contraptions made from plastic pipes from Epicentre, with a chainsaw motor, and wings made of paper and polystyrene. The drones were designed by B., who brilliantly turned simple materials into a device that struck a blow against the Kremlin.
***
The Kremlin was struck by our team, and literally within a few weeks, most of that team... left Kasyanov. Then a few more people left, and then some more. By the time his company in the border guard service was disbanded, only a couple of men remained from the participants in that successful strike.
Yuriy Volodymyrovych Kasyanov keeps repeating – he says, they disbanded the unit that bombed Moscow. But he himself had already successfully disbanded the unit back then due to (unfounded) self-importance, an inability to listen to any opinion other than his own, and the glaring inequality within the unit, where there was him, his son, and everyone else.
Even his childhood friends left. The volunteers from 2014 left. Motivated, brave, professional people left. Even the very patient and modest ones left.
Then, in the summer of 2023, B. left – the designer of that aircraft which struck the Kremlin. What’s more, he and a group of my former colleagues subsequently significantly improved and expanded the capabilities of the UAV model that ‘bombed the Kremlin’. Kasyanov did nothing of the sort with this aircraft model.
There have been no attacks on the Kremlin since then. A telling fact, isn’t it? Although ‘Kasyanov’s company’ continued to exist for another two years.
The unit that actually bombed Moscow split into several different units shortly after that attack, and is still fighting today as part of the Ukrainian Defence Forces. Things are moving forward.
B. and others created several more unique devices, which they are still using today. Kasyanov, unfortunately, did not.
Unfortunately, not without losses. During the fighting, one of our fighters was killed (may he rest in peace!), another was seriously wounded.
I did not see Kasyanov at the funeral.
***
Now, a few, so to speak, concluding remarks.
1. The collapse of the team is, so to speak, not a bug of YV, but a feature. Even before the full-scale UAV projects he initiated, with their very ambitious and far-reaching ideas, were falling apart, not least for the reasons described above.
2. The allegations that military personnel were used as a labour force at Kasyanov’s private firm – unfortunately, have some basis in fact. Most of his unit were, de facto, employees and worked on the production, configuration and testing of the drones (myself included). Furthermore, Kasyanov was effectively supplying drones to himself – he manufactured them himself and used them himself. This was a clear conflict of interest. YV publicly denies this, but the facts are stubborn things.
3. Kasyanov’s criticism of Berlin is simply astonishing in its immorality. Maria always helped Kasyanov. She helped him, then received nothing but ingratitude in return, and then helped him again. But when she refused to cover up his corrupt dealings, she became, as he puts it, a ‘sworn enemy’. Yulia has not apologised for any of these clearly false accusations.
4. The drone that flew into the Kremlin three years ago – I have no wish whatsoever to disparage this method. On the contrary, I was and remain a supporter of such an approach. The Russians are sending Gerberas and Parodies our way – and in doing so they are acting correctly, overloading our air defences. I have advocated and will continue to advocate such an approach. I hope I will be heard.
All articles in the "Opinion" section are published in full from their original sources. The editorial team may not share the authors’ views and accepts no responsibility for their statements.
