> Let's say I [the Netherlands] pay [!?] someone [Ukraine] to punch you [Russia] int the face every day. Then one day when you [Russia] punch me [Ukraine] in the face do I have a right to complain?
Ukraine is defending itself, and nobody is paying Ukraine to do that. Russia is the aggressor here. It's weird that I need to point that out. We're talking about Russia sabotaging someone for selling defensive capabilities to Ukraine. So a better analogy is this:
Let's say I punch you in the face every day. Then one day you buy a baseball bat from Gart Sports to defend yourself, so I go in and punch the manager of Gart Sports. Am I in the wrong?
Yes, very obviously, when you frame the analogy correctly, you are in the wrong.
With you up until there. There's nothing defensive about drones. Retributive capabilities certainly, pre-emptive capabilities maybe, but absolutely offensive capabilities, not defensive ones. Attacking Russia back was a line that was definitively crossed in May 2024. You may argue it was justified, but not that it wasn't attacking. In terms of that stupid punching analogy (which wasn't yours to begin with, I know) this is going over to your bully's neighborhood with that baseball bat.
But that leaves us back where we started doesn't it? If it's fair game to attack civilian infrastructure which was used or could be used to make the weapons you are getting hit with - then why should it make a difference if it's in the Netherlands? Or in China for that matter? I'm pretty sure that if Russian weapons were made in a state technically not in the conflict (say Belarus), that wouldn't stop Ukraine from sabotaging them.
I'm not denying that Russia was the initial aggressor. I am saying enough lines have been crossed that we really can't fault Russia if they wanted to sabotage weapons production in the west.
But, you can and should fault Russia for getting into that position in the first place, that their neighbor is attacking them back with drones.