Putin fired the Kremlin himself? What conclusions can be drawn about Russian air defense after the UAV attack on the Kremlin

Particularly conditional modern means. But that's not all. There has never been a completely closed airspace over Russia. For the most part, air defense means imitated echelorated protection along the border with NATO countries, as well as over Moscow and St. Petersburg. But they were imitated, not guaranteed. Now Russia accuses Ukraine of hitting the UAV on the Kremlin. But Russian officials did not provide any evidence that it was a Ukrainian UAV.

What are your evidence? But even if you assume that it is, what, the Ukrainian drone overcame hundreds of kilometers to Moscow? That is, hundreds of kilometers through the echelorated air defense as a than oil - and Russia declares the whole world about it? Do you know what is it called? Discredit of the Russian army. Horror! Arrest these scoundrels, inagents! Ah, yes, frightened "inagents" themselves sit in the Kremlin attacked UFO. Russia has not felt such a reputational blow for a long time.

Even Matthias Rust, against the background of the incident, these are children's pranks. Moscow missile cruiser at the bottom of the Black Sea feels abandoned and worthless.

But the question arises against the backdrop of all these moments, and what is the meaning of such a blow? Let's say, if Ukraine has made this blow, what profits, except for demonstrating that we can do it, emphasizes the talentlessness of Russian air defense, which has long been known for a long time, and psychological effect? Yes, in fact, no more. On the other hand . . . On the other hand, Russia can begin to justify its military crimes by both this blow and those that are being prepared.