By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On the night of July 19, Moscow was reportedly targeted by Ukrainian drones for the third consecutive night, as reported by Mayor Sergey Sobyanin. Russian air defense units intercepted 13 drones in under two hours, although no casualties or damage have been reported. The alleged attack follows similar strikes on July 17 and 18, impacting Moscow and surrounding areas. These recent events occur amid reports of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s warnings against attacks on Moscow, as well as offering Russia a deadline to make a peace deal.
Read the original article here
Ukraine attacks Moscow with drones for the third straight night, according to Russian officials, and it’s hard not to have a pretty visceral reaction to that. We’ve been watching this conflict unfold, a real-life tragedy playing out on our screens, and the narratives are shifting. It’s almost like the chickens are coming home to roost, as they say. The invasion of Ukraine has, from the start, been a flagrant violation of international law and human decency. So, when the aggressor starts getting a taste of its own medicine, it’s hard to feel any sympathy.
This isn’t to say anyone should cheer the destruction of life or property. But there’s a certain grim satisfaction in seeing the consequences of actions visited upon those who initiated them. The very phrase “consequences of your actions” echoes through the whole situation, doesn’t it? It’s the natural order of things, and in this case, it feels oddly justifiable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was never going to be without repercussions, and now, those repercussions are reaching the heart of the aggressor.
And the response? It ranges from schadenfreude to a sort of dark humor. You see comments like “Oh shit, the people we invaded are attacking our capital,” which perfectly encapsulates the irony of the situation. Russia, having initiated a war of aggression, is now experiencing the discomfort of being on the receiving end. The idea of Ukraine “liberating Russians” has a certain wicked charm, particularly when considering the sheer brutality of the invasion and the suffering it has inflicted.
The focus, understandably, tends to hone in on the absurdity of the situation. The idea that Russia, after years of bombing Ukraine’s cities, is surprised by retaliation is almost comical. It’s like the old saying about sowing and reaping – they sowed war, and now they’re reaping a whirlwind. The level of frustration and a certain “told you so” is evident across the spectrum of responses, reflecting the collective exhaustion with Russia’s actions.
There’s also the suggestion that Russia could stop these attacks instantly if it withdrew from Ukrainian territory and restored the pre-invasion borders. It’s a simple solution to a complex problem, yet it highlights the fundamental issue. If the goal is to end the attacks, the solution is, in essence, to cease the initial aggression. While the point of leaving Crimea is controversial, offering it up to Ukraine in exchange for peace shows the desire for the war to come to an end.
The consistent message is clear: there is a fundamental lack of sympathy for Russia, particularly its government. Blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for the invasion and the subsequent suffering. This isn’t a reflection on the Russian people as a whole, but rather a condemnation of the choices made by their leadership. It’s a harsh reality, but it’s the reality that has been created.
The drone attacks are almost seen as an inevitable consequence of a war that should never have begun. The idea of a “50-day streak” is bandied about, and a desire for more attacks shows the intensity of the feelings against Russia’s actions. This might appear callous, but it’s a reflection of the anger and frustration that has built up over the past several months.
The possibility of nuclear threats also creeps into the conversation, and that’s understandable. War brings all kinds of threats, and it’s something we have all thought about, the possibility of the situation escalating. The fear is real, but it’s also a reminder of the stakes involved.
Of course, there’s also the grim reality of the war. The destruction, the loss of life, the displacement of people – these are the human costs. The attacks on Moscow are a stark reminder of the human aspect of the war. The destruction of property, the impact on ordinary citizens – it’s hard to ignore.
That said, the sentiment is that this is “war” and retaliation is to be expected. There’s a certain acknowledgment of this reality, despite the emotional impact. Russia, having chosen this path, is now facing the consequences. It’s a brutal truth, but it’s the reality of the situation.
The comments, and the overall sentiment, offer a glimpse into a world shaped by conflict, where the lines between right and wrong are blurred. Ukraine’s actions are seen by some as a right, a justifiable act in response to an unprovoked invasion. The use of drones is simply the tool of the day, a means to an end, as war evolves.
The situation also brings out the sardonic responses. The idea that Russia is somehow surprised or feels wronged by the attacks is frequently ridiculed. It highlights the hypocrisy of the situation. The sentiment can be boiled down to: “You started it.”
The conversation then pivots to what Ukraine might do in the future. While Crimea is brought up, its potential value, particularly its gas and oil fields, becomes a critical point.
The drone wars, and where they may end, highlight the lack of solutions to the conflict. This war is not a game, and it has serious impacts, so it’s not surprising to see the strong emotions in response.