Drone strike on the central building of the SBU in Kyiv gave rise to several mutually exclusive versions: Vladimir Zelensky accused Russiawhile some Ukrainian bloggers and former politicians claim that the drone could have been launched from the territory of Ukraine itself.
On September 4, a drone hit the central building of the Security Service of Ukraine on Vladimirskaya Street, opposite St. Sophia Cathedral.
President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that the device was sent not just in the building, but directly in the office of the acting head of the SBU, Alexander Poklad.
According to city authorities, people were injured as a result of the attack. Thick black smoke rose over the center of Kyiv after the impact.
Official version: Russian strike
Official Kyiv leaves no doubt in its interpretation of what happened.
Zelensky said that the SBU building was hit Russian droneand after a conversation with Poklad, he instructed to prepare an “appropriate and tangible response” to Russia.
International agencies Reuters and AP also initially reported the attack as a Russian strike, based on statements by Ukrainian authorities.
At the same time, no independent public technical analysis of the drone wreckage was provided at the time of publication.
Alternative version: the launch could have been from the territory of Ukraine
Almost immediately after the strike, another version appeared in the Ukrainian information space.
Its supporters draw attention to the estimated trajectory of the device and claim that it could approach the center of Kyiv from the west.
In the distributed calculations, the territory between Kozintsy and Mikhailovka-Rubezhovka, west of Kyiv – approximately 27-32 km from the SBU building, is named as a possible launch area.
However, these calculations are so far based on the analysis of video recordings and maps, and not on official data from the Ukrainian air defense or the results of the examination.
Therefore, it is not yet possible to talk about an internal launch as an established fact.
Shariy: “I am 500% sure that these are not Russians”
The most categorically alternative version was formulated by a Ukrainian blogger Anatoly Shariy.
After posting footage of the impact, he wrote:
“The drone flew into Poklad’s office. Tell you what I am 500% sure of? These are not Russians.”
Later, Shariy separately drew attention to the extreme accuracy of the strike.
In his opinion, it is unusual that during the war years Russian attacks practically did not lead to the liquidation of the top leadership of the SBU, whereas now the apparatus has gone directly to Poklad’s office.
Shariy directly linked the incident to the recent public confrontation between the SBU and the GUR.
He wrote that “as soon as there is a public war between the GUR and the SBU, there is an immediate arrival aimed at killing Poklad”.
Mosiychuk also rejects the Russian version
A similar position was taken by the former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Igor Mosiychuk.
He also said that he did not consider the incident to be a Russian attack, and suggested that it could be an internal operation.
According to him, the central building of the SBU after the start of the war is used much less than before, which additionally raises the question of why the attack fell there and right now.
However, these assertions have not yet been supported by published results of technical expertise.
Two days before, the SBU and the GUR shot at each other
The main political context of the current story arose just two days before the strike.
On September 2 in Kyiv there was armed clash between employees of the SBU and the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
“Athens News” talked about this in detail in the material “Kyiv: shootout between SBU and GUR – three wounded”.
It is confirmed that there were injuries during the conflict three representatives of the Main Intelligence Directorate.
After the scandal, Zelensky publicly called the incident unacceptable and ordered a full investigation into the actions of both structures.
Reuters reported that a representative of the SBU and a soldier associated with military intelligence had already received suspicions.
That is, the internal conflict between the two main power structures of Ukraine is not a conspiracy theory, but officially confirmed fact.
Political version: the blow could have covered the SBU-GUR scandal
Against this background, another interpretation has emerged, which concerns not so much the origin of the drone as the information effect of the strike.
Some Ukrainian bloggers suggest that the episode could have been used to divert public attention from the extremely inconvenient scandal surrounding the shootout between the SBU and the GUR.
The logic of this version is clear: even in the morning, the Ukrainian information space was discussing the internal struggle of the special services, wounded employees, possible abuses and the responsibility of management.
After the attack on the SBU, the entire agenda almost instantly shifted to the topic of the Russian attack and the need for a retaliatory strike.
However, it is especially important here to separate two different issues.
Even if the Ukrainian authorities really use the strike to change the information agenda, this does not in itself provethat the drone was Ukrainian.
The informational use of an event and the origin of the apparatus are two completely different things.
Why the accuracy of the shot raises questions
The choice of target attracts additional attention.
We are not talking about hitting a common building complex or accidentally damaging an administrative facility.
According to Zelensky himself, the drone was aimed directly at Alexander Poklad’s office.
For supporters of the internal version, this accuracy is one of the main arguments.
However, there is also an opposite explanation: Russian intelligence could theoretically have accurate data on the location of the office of the head of the SBU.
The Security Service is one of the main Ukrainian structures engaged in sabotage and special operations against Russia, so its leadership is of obvious interest to Russian intelligence services.
Is there confirmation from Russia?
A separate question concerns Moscow’s position.
The Russian Ministry of Defense’s initial reports of the September 4 strikes did not specifically highlight the central SBU building.
This circumstance is actively used by supporters of the alternative version.
However, the absence of an object in the Russian report is not proof of non-involvement of Russia: The Russian Ministry of Defense does not always list all the targets of a specific attack.
Three versions at the moment
| Version | What is it based on? | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Russian strike | Statements by Zelensky and Ukrainian authorities | Official version of Kyiv |
| Launch from Ukraine | Estimated trajectory, strike accuracy, bloggers’ statements | Not confirmed |
| Use to change agenda | The strike occurred immediately after the scandalous shootout between SBU and GUR | Political interpretation |
Editorial comment
The very fact that the version of an internal launch so quickly became widespread among Ukrainian commentators already speaks of a serious crisis of trust within the Ukrainian security system.
Just a few days ago, the assumption of an armed conflict between the SBU and the GUR could have been attributed to an information war. Today, the shootout was officially confirmed, three GUR employees were wounded, and Zelensky demands an investigation.
And it is against this background that the drone exceptionally accurately lands in the office of a person at the top of the leadership of the SBU.
This coincidence in itself does not prove anything. Russia has both the motive and the technical capabilities for such a strike.
But such an unusual sequence of events naturally raises questions.
At the same time, the political version of a change in the information agenda does not require us to assume the Ukrainian origin of the drone. Even a real Russian strike objectively turned out to be an extremely convenient event for Kyiv: the topic of internal firefight between the special services instantly disappeared from the pages of the international media.
Therefore, now it is more correct to talk not about “disclosed provocation”, but about three competing explanations for one highly unusual episode.
The final answer could be provided by the wreckage of the drone, data from Ukrainian air defense, radar recordings and an accurate reconstruction of its route. Until these materials are publicly presented, it is premature to assert with absolute certainty the origin of the device.
More Stories
“Happy birthday, Mr. President”: Geranium-4 with a portrait of Putin flew over Kiev
Rio tanker attacked near Sochi: Cypriot trace, Russian oil and 23 rescued sailors
Russia deals one of the biggest attacks on Ukraine: at least 20 dead