Holding Back Ukraine is Holding Back Justice

 

Putin's terror campaign against Ukraine must be met with equal force—Ukraine should strike Russian cities, including Moscow, to expose Russia to the same devastation it inflicts. The truth is clear: limiting Ukraine’s ability to hit back at Russia is not protecting peace; it’s protecting Putin’s ability to wage unchecked war on civilians.

When it comes to missile exchanges, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Russia’s relentless targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including power stations, water supplies, and other critical facilities, demands one simple countermeasure: let Ukraine strike back, including Moscow. Putin’s Russia must be made to feel the very destruction it continues to unleash on Ukraine. Only then will this ruthless aggression be deterred, and the Western-imposed limits on Ukraine’s use of weapons must be removed.

On a recent Monday, Russia launched one of its biggest missile and drone attacks in weeks, pounding multiple Ukrainian regions. Over 100 missiles and drones rained down in a coordinated assault that damaged energy infrastructure across Ukraine and claimed the lives of four civilians. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the attacks “vile,” a term that captures the depth of Russia's terrorizing campaign aimed at plunging Ukraine into darkness and chaos. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal echoed this sentiment, pointing out that Russia’s strikes on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure are nothing short of terrorism.

But what makes this situation more grotesque is that Ukraine remains constrained by Western powers in its response. While Russia bombs Ukrainian cities at will, Ukraine's use of advanced Western weapons to strike inside Russia remains limited. This double standard must end. If Russia can strike Ukraine’s energy infrastructure to weaken its military-industrial complex, as the Russian Defense Ministry claims, then Ukraine should be allowed to do the same to Russia. Why should Moscow and other Russian cities remain safe havens for the war architects behind these brutal campaigns?

To understand the scope of Russia's actions, it's crucial to examine the historical context. Since the invasion in February 2022, Russia has repeatedly targeted civilian infrastructure in Ukraine as part of its military strategy. The aim? To cripple Ukraine’s resilience by forcing widespread blackouts, water shortages, and societal collapse. These tactics are not new. The Russian military's doctrine often includes overwhelming the enemy’s civilian population to undermine morale. We saw similar approaches in the Chechen wars and the Syrian conflict, where Russia's indiscriminate bombing campaigns aimed to break the will of the people.

The attack on Monday was merely another page from this well-worn playbook. Swarms of Russian drones attacked regions in eastern, northern, southern, and central Ukraine, followed by volleys of ballistic and cruise missiles. Blackouts ensued in multiple regions, including Sumy, Rivne, and Odesa, as emergency cuts were implemented to stabilize the grid. Residents in Kyiv, Ukraine's capital, faced power and water shortages, a situation all too familiar since Russia began targeting energy infrastructure last fall.

If Ukraine's infrastructure is fair game, it begs the question: why shouldn't Russia’s infrastructure be as well? Why should Moscow remain untouched while Kyiv burns? Putin’s actions must have consequences, and the only language his regime understands is force. This is not about escalating the conflict but about achieving a balance of deterrence. Ukraine has the right to defend itself not only on its soil but to carry the fight into the heart of Russia, where the war planners sit comfortably, far removed from the destruction they wreak.

Western nations, especially the United States, Germany, and France, have been hesitant to allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons to strike deep into Russia. This hesitancy stems from a fear of provoking a broader war. Yet, this cautious approach has only emboldened Russia. By shielding Moscow and other Russian cities from the consequences of their actions, the West enables Putin to continue his campaign of destruction without fear of reprisal. If anything, the current strategy is akin to giving a bully a free pass. As long as the bully knows he won’t be hit back, he has no reason to stop.

Ukraine's Prime Minister Shmyhal has rightfully urged Western allies to lift these restrictions and allow Ukraine to hit back at the very places from which Russian missiles are launched. The argument is simple: to stop the shelling of Ukrainian cities, the missile launch sites in Russia must be destroyed. Allowing Ukraine to strike back would not only degrade Russia's ability to continue these attacks but would also send a powerful message that the days of one-sided destruction are over.

If we look at history, deterrence has often been the only effective means to stop aggression. During the Cold War, it was the threat of mutual destruction that kept both the United States and the Soviet Union from launching full-scale nuclear war. In this context, allowing Ukraine to strike back at Russian infrastructure is not an escalation but a necessary step to restore balance. Russia must be made to realize that for every missile it fires at Ukraine, a missile could just as easily be fired back at Moscow.

Putin’s regime thrives on its ability to terrorize without consequence. This pattern was evident in Russia's earlier incursions in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, where minimal repercussions followed. The West's fear of escalation only emboldens the Kremlin. The message to Putin must be clear: continue this path, and Moscow, along with your cherished strongholds, will face the same devastation you have wrought upon Ukraine.

 

Furthermore, Ukraine’s right to defend itself is enshrined in international law. The United Nations Charter allows for self-defense, and given that Russia has not only invaded Ukraine but also continuously targeted civilian infrastructure, Ukraine is fully justified in using any means necessary to protect its people and its nation. The West’s continued limitations on Ukraine's use of advanced weaponry directly hampers this right to self-defense.

The only way to stop Putin is to make Russia feel the pain it has inflicted on Ukraine. As long as Russian cities remain untouched, Putin has no incentive to stop his aggression. Lifting all restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western weapons is not just a matter of military strategy; it is a matter of fairness and justice. It is time for Russia to experience the consequences of its actions firsthand.

In a war that Putin thought he could win in a matter of days, he now finds himself mired in a conflict that exposes the limits of his power. Perhaps a little taste of what Moscow has dished out to Kyiv will remind him that in war, no one remains unscathed forever. After all, what's a little missile between enemies?