There have been several drone strikes in Russia the past couple of weeks. Russia is very obviously pointing their bloody fingers at Ukraine and Ukraine is denying it vehemently. Some intelligence types are suggesting that it might be a false flag operation on the part of Russia to rile up their base. This doesn’t seem unlikely IM(uniformed)O. Russia is so up in arms about it (pun intended) that they’re threatening the use of nuclear weapons.
But even if were true that Ukraine is lobbing minimally effective drone strikes at Russia, don’t they have every right to do that? For justification, they could just “point to literally anywhere in their country.” How many punches does Ukraine have to take before they can strike with one of their own?
If Putin and his extremist goons were operating on any kind of rational basis, they wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine in the first place. But they’re not. Their mindset is that Ukraine is Russian property with no right to an independent existence, and certainly no right to cause trouble when they try to violently take it over. It’s just that crazed and simple.
Ah, you’re asking why Russia thinks this is wrong. Well, that’s just what bullies do. The worst offense a bully can imagine is their victim standing up for themselves and fighting back.
As for the rest of us, I have no moral qualms about Ukraine hitting back. There might be a discussion to be had as to if this is a good choice, tactically or strategically, but morally, there’s no question.
It’s a line that the US and European countries drew in order to justify sending arms to Ukraine. It’s as real as the line Russia drew to justify invading Ukraine but not bombing any other country, even non-NATO ones.
Everybody’s terrified that if Ukraine starts bombing Russia, Putin will use that as an excuse for nuclear weapons. On the flip side, Putin is terrified that if he bombs a NATO country that will trigger their retaliatory policy. Ukraine gets stuck in the middle.
We may be so deep in the mud that those imaginary lines are being covered. Ukraine keeps getting weapons that countries denied them in the beginning and there seems to be less fear that Putin will use nukes. Yet, if that is wiped off the table, Putin loses any leverage. Are we at that point? Who knows. If we are then striking back is viable, although Ukraine can’t afford to waste much weaponry just for show.
I believe that Ukraine pinky swore not to use the weapons the US gave them to attack anything inside Russia.
Is there any political or “rules of war” reason that country X can provide weapons for country Y to defend itself, but not use in the attacking country Z ?*
This. All acknowledged and/or generally universally agreed to have actually have been conducted by Ukraine attacks inside Russia proper have been conducted with non-US/Western supplied munitions. The political blowback of Ukraine’s having their weapons and armaments pipeline, to say nothing of Ukraine’s economy being floated by the West being cut, would be devastating to the Ukrainian war effort. It’s a lot more than having pinkie-sworn not to use US munitions on targets inside Russia proper.
This would be more meaningful if Russia hadn’t been threatening to use nuclear weapons since the first day of the war. It’s an entirely vapid threat and everyone knows it. The threats are more for domestic political consumption than anything else. Remember this video shown on Russian state TV from beginning of May last year?
There is also the fact that doing so would feed into Russian propaganda. Putin’s war justification was that invading Ukraine was a defensive move because the West was using Ukraine in its primary goal destroying Russia. As it stands such a claim is ludicrous, with nothing to support it. But if Western munitions start falling on Russian cities, then Putin can say “See I told you!”, and use it as a rallying cry to galvanize popular Russian support for his war effort.
Right, but it obviously isn’t going to fly with anyone else not subject to his bullshit as their only source of information as justification for escalation.
And everyone now knows that he can’t even protect Moscow against a drone. If it’s a false flag, it seems to be of rather dubious benefit.
The only problem I see with striking back at the Evil Empire is that, apart from the complications this might bring on the relations with the West and the help Ucraine may no longer get if we get cold feet (a risk the Ucrainians sure have evaluated and found bearable), one day there will have to be peace talks. No war lasts forever. And this will complicate those talks. Putin is losing face big time.
Serves him right. Slava Ukrainie!
On the other hand, this might accelerate the onset of those talks. Who knows?
Morally wrong … no. Strategically wrong … yes, because a few small strikes inside of Russia amount to a mosquito bite militarily speaking, but it gives Putin political fodder for his propaganda machine. The issue is big, bad Russia invading a sovereign nation. Let’s keep it that way.
Agreed, the only strike that would be worth doing is literally turning Moscow into a glass surfaced parking lot, hopefully catching Putin and the rest of the Oligarchs at the same time.
Just a comment, we already have a similar thread on this:
Although that one is in IMHO and a tiny bit more ranty (with cause). Just figured I’d share so that all of the similar opinions (and snark) previously dumped on Pudding Head Putin are seen by all.
Strategically wrong for the alleged cross border incidents from disaffected Russian’s in the Ukraine fighting against Russia. Strategically, if a couple of simple raids across the border cause the Russian army to prepare a defense against a much larger line of potential combat, that lessons the actual number of Russian troops in the Ukraine. In other words, make Russia start to also prepare for defense in addition to the offense. Potentially tie up a lot of Russian cannon fodder, I mean troops. YMMV
Well, does Ukraine object to Russian drone attacks not only because (1) they are an unwarranted act of unlawful aggression but also because (2) they are an illegal indiscriminate attack on civilian, noncombatant targets?
If Ukraine is asserting the second argument, then that would make it difficult for them to acknowledge responsibility for, or defend the legality of, similar drone attacks on Russian cities. In general, the fact that your enemy is perpetrating war crimes in your territory is not a justification for your perpetration of the same war crimes in your enemy’s territory.
(To be clear, I don’t know that Ukraine is advancing this argument. I’m just suggesting a possible answer to the question raised.)