These statements are fallacious from the get go, containing as they do false (unproven) assumptions, but also ignoring other facts.
1. Putin's Russia declared war on a "Special Military Operation" against Ukraine. In that moment, the gloves were off, and Putin could no longer reasonably expect any "special treatment."
2. Putin's Russia has been rocket-bombing Ukrainian cities, with little regard for (or success in) avoiding civilian targets like schools, nursing homes, apartment buildings, etc.
3. In doing so, Putin has launched the bloodiest war in Europe since WWII.
4. Ukraine has previously done nothing of the scale that would warrant any such atrocities. Suppressing disgruntled separatists - backed by Moscow - operating on sovereign Ukrainian territory does not warrant sending tank columns against the Ukrainian capital city!
5. Putin has murdered innocent Ukrainians, and as such has made himself a legitimate target for Ukrainian forces. But...
6. There is no proof that Ukraine did, indeed, attack the Kremlin with drones. There are any of a number of other, quite plausible explanations for whatever happened there.
I, for one, suspect that it might have been a "false-flag" operation, possibly launched by Putin himself, while he sat safe and sound somewhere else - to justify some further atrocity he plans to commit. (But maybe it was an attempted coup by someone in Putin's inner circle.) Maybe it was that animal, Blundetto - jeez, I can't even say his name! The simple fact is: We may never know.
I am also sick and tired of these constant invalid comparisons of "What would we do if the Russians installed a puppet regime in Mexico and...?"
There is no comparing the U.S. - which I love - with the loathsome spawn of Putin's Russia. Many things which the U.S. might do in any given situation would be morally allowable, or at least realpolitisch defensible, even though they might be morally reprehensible if that crackpot dictator Putin did something analogous.
There: I said it!
Regards,