Russia accuses U.S. of drone strike on Moscow

Somebody decided to celebrate the 4th of July yesterday with a different type of fireworks. Five combat drones were launched at the Russian capital of Moscow. The attack didn’t produce much in the way of results, at least according to Russia’s Foreign Ministry. Their spokesman claims that four of the drones were shot down and the fifth one “lost control and crashed.” But while nobody is taking credit for the attack, the Kremlin is blaming the United States and our NATO allies, at least in part. They claim that Ukraine couldn’t have pulled off such a “terror attack” (as they describe it) without Western assistance. (USA Today)

Russia accused the U.S. and its allies of helping Ukraine launch a drone attack Tuesday aimed at Moscow and its surroundings, temporarily disrupting air traffic at a major international airport.

None of the five drones targeting the Russian capital region caused injuries or damage, as four were shot down by air defenses and the other one lost control and crashed, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said, according to the state-owned TASS news agency. The ministry claimed such an assault would not have been feasible for Ukraine without Western support.

“All this makes Washington and its satellites complicit in preparing and carrying out terror attacks that are being prepared and carried out on Western money and with Western weapons,” the ministry said, as quoted by TASS.

As usual, Zelensky has not acknowledged any involvement in the drone attack, but unless it was launched by internal Russian dissidents, the list of suspects is rather thin. (This isn’t the first time drones have hit Moscow.) As to American or NATO involvement, it’s pretty much a given that we were involved at some point in the process. We no doubt gave Ukraine the drones and trained their people on how to use them. But they should be able to launch their own attacks by now.

Russia’s protests highlight two running themes in this exhaustingly protracted proxy war. The Russian Foreign Ministry accused Ukraine and by association the United States of “terrorism” and planning “to attack a zone where civil infrastructure is located.” Such protests are laughable to the point of being ludicrous. Even as they were saying that, Russian missiles were hitting civilian targets and destroying infrastructure inside of Ukraine. They’ve been doing so daily for most of the war. The idea that the international community would support a Russian claim to immunity from attacks in response is absurd.

But at the same time, the Kremlin’s response is an unpleasant reminder of how easily this war could escalate out of control. If Putin and his goons choose to declare that NATO forces have directly attacked Russia, he could use that as an excuse to respond in kind. And with his conventional military forces depleted so badly, he might see a nuclear attack as his only viable option.

Fears of escalation have likely decreased somewhat after the Wagner debacle last weekend. Putin appears weaker than before and less in control of his own military and his country. But that doesn’t make him entirely toothless by any means. That’s why it’s at least possible that he might be more open to a ceasefire and the possibility of working toward a negotiated settlement of some kind, likely with a third country serving as an arbitrator. We should definitely take this opportunity if it presents itself. Allowing America or any other NATO nation a seat at the table would almost certainly be too much for Putin’s ego to tolerate. But perhaps South Africa or India could do the honors. No matter who handles it, however, this war needs to come to a close before we suddenly found ourselves in a worst-case scenario.