For a nation in bad straits owing to war, Ukraine is acting awfully high and mighty, boldly attacking Moscow's ritziest financial district with drones, and not doing a whole lot to hide it:

BREAKING: Ukrainian drone strikes Moscow again tonight pic.twitter.com/N5tJ5NA3uU

— Jack Poso рџ‡єрџ‡ё (@JackPosobiec) July 30, 2023

According to Axios:

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a warning to Russia's invading forces Sunday after the Kremlin accused Kyiv of overnight drone attacks on Moscow.

What they're saying: "Today is the 522nd day of the so-called 'special military operation,' which the Russian leadership expected to last for a week or two," Zelensky said in a televised address, according to a transcript.

• "Ukraine is getting stronger," he added. "Gradually, the war is returning to the territory of Russia — to its symbolic centers and military bases, and this is an inevitable, natural and absolutely fair process."

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Ukraine's Air Force said the drones were intended to impact Russians who felt Putin's invasion was distant, per the Kyiv Times.

• "There's always something flying in Russia, as well as in Moscow," Yurii Ihnat added. "Now the war is affecting those who were not concerned."

Axios notes that they have not officially claimed "credit" for the strikes, but what is one to make of these statements?  Axios notes that they vowed to employ more drone strikes in the wake of their takeout of the Russian bridge to Crimea.

So did they do it, but they don't want to claim responsibility for it officially?  Is that to perhaps to prevent Russia from launching some kind of lawsuit in the Hague against Ukraine, or else get its buddies in the United Nations to condemn it?  Or most disturbingly, are they not claiming credit because they want to get the Russians to think we did it, so that the retaliation flows to the U.S. instead of Ukraine?

There are many possibilities, and one shouldn't disregard the Prigozhin possibility, either.  Prigozhin was blamed by many for the drone attacks in Moscow last May.

I don't have an answer.  But this drone strike had a hard psychological impact on the Russians.  It was in the heart of the fanciest financial district, known as Moscow City; it was just 2.8 miles from the Kremlin; and it was filmed at close quarters.  Moscow said it did minor damage to buildings, but that seems belied by the photos, which show burned out husks of offices.

Even if we know nothing about who launched this attack and Russia concludes it was Ukraine's doing, it seems like a mighty good recipe for inviting retaliation against Ukraine's money sponsor, the U.S., given that Russia knows that the U.S. is pretty much financing the Ukrainian war effort (without an auditor, as I noted here) and therefore has a lot of money to throw around on expansions like these.  The numerous neocon consultants from the U.S. on the ground there might even be encouraging it.

What does Russia do in a situation like that?  Sure, they may retaliate against Ukraine, and they probably will.  But they may also retaliate against the U.S., getting to the root of the matter, owing to the U.S.'s moneybags role.  We know they know it; one only need read the statements of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov (here's one) to know they know it.

Do they hit one of our cities directly with a drone in retaliation?  Do they do it with admitting it, or without admitting it?  Do they take out a power grid or burn a food producing factory or farm?  We don't know.  We do know they use food as a weapon, as their recent maneuvers against Ukraine's grain shipments shows.  But we don't know what they will do, except take their own sweet time to do it.

If they see us as this involved, they will make us pay, which isn't exactly what Americans thought they were bargaining for when they supported sending defense aid to Ukraine.

The frustrating thing here is that Ukraine would not be in a position to expand its war to Moscow were it not for all the billions flowing in from the U.S.  The Ukrainians might not be in a position to demand total victory in this war, neocon style, instead of negotiate something out with Russia that both sides can live with.  They blatantly dismissed Russia's pre-invasion call not to join NATO, which would have prevented a lot of problems if they had opted for neutrality, which many nations successfully practice, yelling that it was a threat to their entire sovereignty.  Yet they had a very big, very hungry bear at their door and ought to have recognized reality.

Now the U.S. money seems to be increasing their appetite for fighting it out to total victory even more, and with the losses they've taken, that raises the risk that we will drawn into this war, and even be called in to fight it, given Ukraine's depleted war-fighting force.

That's unintended consequences.  It's sad stuff that the U.S. can't rein in its client state even as it supports it militarily.  Now the odds are rising that we may just be drawn in much farther into this war.  That's not exactly what we bargained for as Joe Biden vowed to send aid to Ukraine, for "as long as it takes."

Image: Twitter screen shot.