Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Nebenzia Complained About Drones Over Moscow — Melnyk Reminded Who Launched the Boomerang

At a UN Security Council meeting on May 19, Ukraine's Permanent Representative Andriy Melnyk broke diplomatic protocol: instead of declarations, he gave a direct response to Nebenzia, stating that attacks on the Moscow region are a consequence, not a cause of the war.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 19, 2026 · 2 min read

Nebenzia Complained About Drones Over Moscow — Melnyk Reminded Who Launched the Boomerang
Андрій Мельник (Фото: Постійне представництво України при ООН)

When Russia's representative Vasily Nebenzia began describing the suffering of residents in the Moscow region following a massive Ukrainian drone attack on May 17 at a UN Security Council meeting on May 19, Ukraine's permanent representative Andriy Melnyk responded without diplomatic restraint.

"Stop complaining about the suffering of poor Russians. What Russia is observing is a boomerang that it launched against Ukraine through Putin. It is returning with triple force and hitting very hard."

Andriy Melnyk, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN, May 19, 2025

The May 17 attack on the Moscow region became one of the largest in terms of the number of drones involved since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. It was precisely this attack that prompted Nebenzia to convene an emergency session — and it was precisely this attack that became the starting point for Melnyk's speech.

The Logic of the "Boomerang" in International Context

Melnyk's argument is not an emotional outburst, but a specific legal position: Ukraine is acting within its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Kyiv qualifies strikes against the territory of the aggressor from which attacks on civilian infrastructure are carried out as a legitimate military means of pressure, not escalation.

Russia has consistently used the Security Council platform as a megaphone for its own narrative — and has equally consistently blocked any resolutions condemning its actions thanks to its veto power. Melnyk chose a tactic that deprives this platform of its usual scenario: instead of accusations in response to accusations — reformatting the question itself. Not "did Ukraine have the right to strike Moscow," but "who started this cycle of violence and bears responsibility for it."

Kherson Region: Humanitarian Crisis Beyond the Security Council's Attention

In parallel with his response to Nebenzia, Melnyk raised an issue that was almost lost in the media noise surrounding Moscow drones: the humanitarian situation in the temporarily occupied territory of Kherson region. The ambassador called on UN member states to strengthen sanctions against Russia and provide additional support to civilians in occupied territories.

  • Shelling of the left bank of Kherson region continues despite repeated appeals to international institutions
  • Access for humanitarian organizations to temporarily occupied territories is effectively blocked by the Russian side
  • The UN documents a shortage of medicines, water supply interruptions, and forced displacement of civilians

The fact that Melnyk combined these two topics in one speech was no coincidence. This is an attempt to keep in one focus both Ukraine's right to self-defense and the price paid by civilians in occupied territories.

What's Next

The UN Security Council is structurally incapable of adopting any binding decision regarding Russia — the veto power remains. But the platform remains an instrument for shaping international opinion. The question is whether the rhetoric of the "boomerang" will translate into concrete pressure: if the West does not strengthen the sanctions package after attacks on Moscow in the same way as after attacks on Kyiv, the difference in response will become an argument that Russia will use for years to come.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026