Ukraine attacked Moscow on Wednesday with at least 11 drones that were shot down by air defences in what Russian officials called one of the biggest drone strikes on the capital since the war in Ukraine began in February 2022.

The war, largely a grinding artillery and drone battle across the fields, forests and villages of eastern Ukraine, escalated on Aug. 6 when Ukraine sent thousands of soldiers over the border into Russia’s western Kursk region.

For months, Ukraine has also fought an increasingly damaging drone war against the refineries and airfields of Russia, the world’s second largest oil exporter, though major drone attacks on the Moscow region - with a population of over 21 million - have been rarer.

Russia’s defence ministry said its air defences destroyed a total of 45 drones over Russian territory, including 11 over the Moscow region, 23 over the border region of Bryansk, six over the Belgorod region, three over the Kaluga region and two over the Kursk region.

  • JohnBrownII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    So terrorism. You want to literally terrorize civilians for military gain. What is wrong with you?

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Have you seen what they did to Ukraine?

      It’s counter-terrorism.

      You can’t let terrorists get away with their terror, the fear must be repaid 10-fold or it will never end.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dude counter-terrorism is the countering of terrorist plots. It does not mean terrorism as retaliation.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It absolutely does, no better way to end terrorism than to make the terrorists afraid of committing acts due to the retaliation.

          Lot of afghans still look up in fear when they hear a noise on a clear day.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Arguments about the utility of any given strategy do not determine the definition of the term “counter terrorism”.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not sure that fire-with-fire strategy is the most effective. At least historically it seems to have mixed results. I think going after their economy makes the most sense: sanctions, refinery attacks, sabotage; hit them in the wallet, break their capacity to continue the carnage.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It works if you can actually hit the people who attacked you.

          The more layers of abstraction between a populace and its government/army, the less likely “retaliation” against the populace will actually succeed as retaliation.

          This is basically the problem with the “Israel/Palestine” conflict. People want to think of it as two parties in conflict but it is not. It is four parties:

          • IDF
          • Israeli citizens
          • Hamas
          • Palestinian civilians

          That four-player nature to the game makes the traditional tit-for-tat strategy break down, which is why the conflict doesn’t end.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re missing the settlers and their ultranationalist allies.

            They’re basically the mirror to Hamas.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think we need to do both, there is no reason to hold back on any front.

          Break the country, then we can figure out how to move forward properly.

          We tried the kind and gentle approach after the ussr, which was the right thing then, but they don’t respond well, they considered it weakness.

          That only leaves the other extreme.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Also the problem with terrorism and retaliation is that terrorism is a guerrilla tactic, and the attacker cannot be located.

        Conflating a terrorist group with the host population that it inhabits leads to sloppy retaliation and hence escalation of the conflict.

        Retaliation is the way to end a conflict, but terrorism prevents retaliation by its nature.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is absolutely true .

          Which is why the Russians were so foolish as to commit blatant terrorism while leaving their calling cards.

          We made an example of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, those lessons held. The same is needed here to imprint the lesson.

      • Etterra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        In the most technical sense, yeah it is. But since the coming use of ‘terrorism’ is to describe harmful acts that instill fear, your argument lacks any real weight. Bees are worse terrorists than I’m suggesting, because they actually will hurt you.