No. They denied that a drone hit them. To deny that something is an attack, you have to first admit that something happened that could be interpreted as an attack. Like a drone hitting your soil. They denied that that happened.

Do you just not understand what you’re reading? Is that the problem? You said: “keywords means of attack”, which makes me think that you think that “means of attack” is somehow a signifier for your point. Which, it’s not. You just don’t understand what that means.

“Means of attack” in this case means a drone. If Ukraine had claimed that Russia accidentally hit Romanian territory with a missile, then “means of attack” would be a missile.

The full sentence, then, with translation (since you apparently don’t understand what it means), is:

“At no time did Russia’s means of attack [drone] generate direct military threats [cause damage, or impact, or explode] on Romanian national territory or waters. [within Romanian borders]”

Which is saying the exact same thing that the pithy one line summary from the article said above this quote:

The Romanian Defence Ministry said Romania was not hit.

Romania denied that a drone hit them. End of story.