By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has indicated that the alliance does not object to Ukraine’s drone strikes on Russian territory, including St. Petersburg, aligning with Ukraine’s right to self-defense. This stance emerges as Ukraine targets military and oil infrastructure, drawing parallels to Russia’s own actions and disruptions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed these strikes are proportionate responses to recent Russian bombardments, focusing on legitimate military and energy targets. These operations have caused significant disruptions, including flight cancellations and fuel shortages, coinciding with major Russian events.
Read the original article here
It appears to be quite straightforward from NATO’s perspective: Ukraine has every right to defend itself, and that defense can extend to striking targets within Russia. This sentiment was articulated by Mark Rutte, who suggested that NATO sees no inherent issue with Ukraine launching strikes on Russian territory, even during a high-profile event like President Putin’s economic forum in St. Petersburg. The underlying logic seems to be that Russia initiated this conflict, and therefore, it should not expect its own territory to be treated as an inviolable sanctuary.
The expectation that Russian territory should remain untouched feels somewhat disconnected from the reality of an ongoing war. Russia has, for years, been launching missiles and drones at Ukrainian cities, including targeting civilian infrastructure and leadership. In this context, the idea that Ukraine should somehow refrain from retaliating on Russian soil, particularly at symbolic locations or economic hubs, appears to be a double standard.
If Russia is willing to wage war and inflict damage on Ukraine daily, it implicitly accepts the consequences that such actions might bring back across its own borders. The responsibility for escalating the conflict and its repercussions lies squarely with Russia. If Russia is unhappy with the current state of affairs, the power to end it rests with them by withdrawing their troops and ceasing hostilities.
The notion that Ukraine’s strikes on Russian territory would constitute direct NATO involvement is also a point that doesn’t quite hold water. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and NATO as an organization is not at war with Russia. Therefore, Ukraine’s defensive actions, even if they impact Russian soil, are not an extension of NATO’s military operations. The argument often raised is that Ukraine is utilizing its own capabilities to defend itself.
Furthermore, the distinction between Russian and Ukrainian targeting is often highlighted. While Russia has been accused of indiscriminately bombing Ukrainian civilian areas, Ukraine’s strikes are generally portrayed as focusing on military and government targets. The visible lack of widespread panic and civilian sheltering in videos of Ukrainian drones over St. Petersburg is often cited as evidence of this more discriminate approach, contrasting with the fear instilled by Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities.
The idea of “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” seems to resonate strongly here. Russia embarked on an uninvited military campaign into another sovereign nation, targeting its people and infrastructure. To then expect no repercussions on its own soil, especially during an event that could be seen as bolstering the very regime prosecuting the war, appears rather audacious.
From a purely strategic and ethical standpoint, when a nation initiates a war and continues to engage in aggressive actions, it accepts the inherent risks associated with that conflict. This includes the possibility of its own territory becoming a target. Russia’s decision to continue the war means it must accept that events will unfold beyond its complete control, and that the consequences may reach home.
The Russian government’s reaction to potential strikes on its territory, particularly during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, can be seen as a reflection of an aggressor facing the consequences of their actions. It’s akin to a bully who expects to inflict pain without ever experiencing it themselves. When the tables turn, even slightly, it can lead to an indignant outcry.
The argument that if Russia is targeting civilian infrastructure daily, then Ukraine targeting Russian facilities is a natural response. Ukraine has also directly targeted leadership within Russia, which is a legitimate act of war. Therefore, it is disingenuous to portray Russia as an innocent victim in this scenario.
In essence, the prevailing sentiment seems to be that Russia started this war, and by doing so, it opened the door for Ukraine to defend itself in any way it sees fit, including striking targets within Russian territory. NATO, as an alliance, does not appear to have an issue with Ukraine exercising its right to self-defense, even if that defense extends to Russian soil. The focus remains on Russia’s ongoing aggression as the root cause of the entire situation.