Or they can become more in favor of it.

That is not what has ever happened at any point in time historically, I actually can't think of a single example. When war is on the doorstep support for your own side typically hardens massively.

The times where populations have turned against wars have always been when the troops are fighting far away from home in lands that the home population feels they shouldn't be dying in.

This will only make people cling to support for the military because they rely on it for personal safety.

It usually has the opposite effect and hardens resolve

When mosquito is a nuisance, but 1000 mosquitoes is a real threat.

surprised pikachu

The fact that Ukraine claims responsibility is a pretty strong indicator. Who else do you think would have done it?

The West insisted that their weapons are not to be used inside Russia. I don't think Ukraine would want to risk the supply of weapons for small political gains.

The Ukrainians revealed a new type of long range kamikaze drone capable of hitting Moscow called the Beaver.

When I first heard the news I actually automatically assumed that's what had happened.

These are partially remote human guided missiles

Fair, but also almost strangely off kilter comment? Idk. I hope when Russia bombs Ukranian cities no one gets hurt but that clearly doesn't happen. Hate to 'whatabout' you but one solid strike against Moscow is hardly triggering my sympathy for them.

If russia doesn't like it, it can leave Ukraine and stop these attacks.

Unfortunately they are, if enough justification exists. In WW2, both the Allies and Axis would bombard cities with civilians if those had any strategic value (military industries, disruption of logistics, sometimes because soldiers were inside the houses, etc).

Other times, it was to try out hypothesis. Germany started to bombard London to see if the population would become demoralised and demand the government to capitulate. The US sent the infamous Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Bombs, because they believed the japanese military would not capitulate through conventional means (I recommend reading more about the pacific war if you're interested, but the bottom line here is that most japanese soldiers were expected to fight to the death, and the US could not treat them like a western power. The nuclear bombs were a bet that they could avoid having to invade Japan itself)

And to be honest things didn't change that much since then. There might be more awareness of how awful it is, some countries might need better justifications than others before targeting cities, but they do it. The US did it in the middle east, Russia too, etc.

From my average joe point of view, this attack didn't target anything with strategic value, but the attack itself is a message that Ukraine can reach Moscow.