By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russian forces launched an extensive missile and drone assault on May 24, primarily targeting Kyiv and its environs, resulting in casualties and widespread damage across the capital. This multi-hour attack, described as one of the largest in the past year, involved hundreds of missiles and drones and impacted every district of Kyiv, including central areas. Numerous civilian homes, infrastructure, and cultural institutions, such as the National Art Museum and the Chornobyl Museum, sustained damage, with the latter reporting irretrievable losses to its collection. The attack also saw the use of Russia’s Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile, marking its third deployment against Ukraine, and prompted Poland to scramble fighter jets to protect its airspace.
Read the original article here
Kyiv bore the brunt of a massive Russian ballistic missile and drone attack, with damage reported in every district of the Ukrainian capital. This assault resulted in at least four confirmed deaths and approximately one hundred injuries, painting a grim picture of the widespread destruction. The scale of the attack, involving expensive and battlefield-critical assets like ballistic missiles and drones, has been questioned for its strategic effectiveness, particularly in light of Ukraine’s focus on precision strikes and disabling Russian logistics. This kind of indiscriminate targeting of civilian areas is seen by many as a desperate measure, an attempt to terrorize Ukrainians into submission, which historically has proven to be a counterproductive strategy.
The attackers unleashed a barrage that left its mark across the city. Beyond the tragic loss of life and injuries, cultural landmarks and everyday spaces did not escape the onslaught. There are reports of a Chornobyl museum, which had recently launched a new exhibition, being destroyed. A shopping mall was also reportedly totaled, and an opera house that many people frequent sustained damage. These attacks, impacting civilian life and cultural heritage, underscore the devastating human cost of such actions, which often overshadows discussions of battlefield gains or losses. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, including museums and malls, highlights a deviation from strategic military objectives, resembling, for some, historical terror bombing tactics.
The sheer scale and nature of the assault raise significant questions about Russia’s strategic thinking. Unleashing broad, often random attacks on Ukrainian cities while Ukraine concentrates on precise operations, such as cutting off supply lines to Crimea and striking Russian oil infrastructure, appears to be a miscalculation. This approach seems to aim at instilling fear, a tactic unlikely to succeed in breaking the Ukrainian spirit; instead, it may well galvanize a more forceful response. The use of valuable military assets for what appears to be minimal strategic gain is a point of contention, leading to the observation that such methods are often characteristic of strategies that ultimately contribute to losing a war.
It’s also noted that such attacks on civilian centers have been a recurring aspect of the conflict, with missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities and civilians happening nearly daily since the war began. Exceptions, like Easter Day and Victory Day, stand out against this backdrop. The notion of Russia attempting to protect itself through such actions is met with considerable skepticism, especially when viewed against the backdrop of extensive civilian casualties and damage. The argument that Russia is simply resorting to what it can do, bombing Kyiv because it is a visible target, much like searching for keys under a streetlight because that’s where the light is, resonates with some observers.
The destruction of civilian infrastructure, including the Chornobyl museum and other sites, prompts reflection on the broader implications of the conflict and the actions taken by Russia. The accusation of targeting civilian structures, including hospitals and schools, prior to this incident, and alleged actions such as the abduction of Ukrainian children and massacres, are frequently raised. The assertion that Russia has not gone to such lengths is strongly refuted, with many pointing to a continuous pattern of attacks on civilian targets throughout the war. This persistent targeting of non-military sites is a stark contrast to Ukraine’s stated aim of targeting military and economic infrastructure, a strategy historically proven to be more effective in achieving victory.
The psychological impact of such attacks, particularly the use of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, is profound. The uncertainty surrounding the specific armaments used in these launches creates a chilling atmosphere, as warnings are issued to assure the public they are non-nuclear. This capability, however, leaves room for terrifying speculation about first strikes with potential, albeit uncertain, consequences. The ongoing conflict, marked by these devastating attacks, continues to highlight the resilience of the Ukrainian people and their determination to defend their nation. The courage displayed by Ukrainians, in continuing their daily lives and cultural activities amidst constant threats, is seen as remarkable by many.