Ukraine has intensified a campaign aimed at making the economic and social costs of the war directly visible to ordinary Russians, shifting strikes and sabotage operations deeper into Russian territory as Kyiv seeks to pressure Moscow by demonstrating that the conflict’s consequences can no longer be confined to the battlefield or to the front-line regions bordering Ukraine. The strategy, which targets infrastructure and systems that underpin modern Russian life, has expanded as Western-supplied long-range capabilities have given Ukrainian forces the means to reach energy facilities, transportation networks, and digital services far from the front.
The shift reflects an evolution in Ukrainian operational thinking since 2024. Drone and missile strikes have increasingly reached oil refineries, ammunition depots, and rail infrastructure deep inside Russia. Russian authorities have reported multiple incidents of disrupted fuel supplies and temporary service outages, though officials have generally downplayed the scale of damage in public statements. Proponents within Ukraine argue that bringing disruption to Russian cities could erode public support for the war, force the Kremlin to divert resources to domestic defense, and complicate Moscow’s ability to sustain its military campaign. Critics, including some Western analysts, have questioned whether such operations are likely to shift Russian public opinion, noting the government’s tight control over domestic media and its long history of mobilizing nationalist sentiment.
What happened
Ukrainian drone and missile strikes have struck Russian energy infrastructure, rail networks, and military logistics sites in regions far from the border. The campaign has targeted facilities that sustain both the Russian economy and the war effort, including refineries that process fuel for military use and rail hubs that move troops and materiel. Russian regional governors have reported temporary disruptions to services, and in some cases fuel shortages have been acknowledged at the local level even as federal authorities have sought to minimize the broader significance of the strikes.
The escalation has been accompanied by a more explicit public framing from Ukrainian officials, who have argued that making Russians feel the war is a necessary part of persuading Moscow to negotiate seriously or to scale back its operations. Ukrainian statements have emphasized that the campaign is intended to reduce Russia’s ability to wage war rather than to inflict harm on civilians, though the line between military and civilian infrastructure in Russia’s integrated energy and transport systems is often blurred.
Why it matters
The campaign matters because it represents a deliberate attempt to alter the strategic calculus inside Russia by imposing costs on the population rather than confining the war to the front lines. If sustained pressure on Russian energy and transport infrastructure produces meaningful economic disruption, it could constrain the resources available to the Russian military and force the Kremlin to allocate additional funding and personnel to domestic defense. If it does not, the campaign nonetheless signals that Ukraine is capable of reaching deep into Russian territory, a fact that carries its own deterrent and psychological weight.
The question of whether disruption inside Russia translates into political pressure is central to debates about the war’s trajectory. Russian public opinion polling is tightly controlled, and independent survey work inside the country remains difficult. Analysts caution that decades of state media dominance and the criminalization of dissent have created an information environment in which strikes on Russian soil may be filtered, downplayed, or reframed before reaching the domestic audience, limiting the psychological effect the campaign is designed to produce.
Background and context
Ukraine’s ability to strike deep into Russia expanded significantly with the arrival of Western-supplied long-range systems, beginning with artillery and rocket systems in 2023 and extending to longer-range missiles and a growing domestic drone program. The shift followed a period in which Western partners had restricted Ukraine’s use of donated weapons to targets within Ukraine’s own territory or within range of the front lines, on concerns about escalation with Russia. By 2025, the policy debate within NATO had shifted toward permitting strikes on Russian military and infrastructure targets, though restrictions vary by country and by weapons system.
The strategic logic of bringing the war home to Russia has historical echoes. Allied bombing campaigns in the Second World War were designed in part to break civilian morale and force political change, though historians continue to debate the degree to which strategic bombing succeeded in that aim. More recent campaigns, including Israeli strikes on Iranian-linked assets and the U.S. campaign against ISIS oil infrastructure, have revived the question of whether economic pressure on a society can translate into political change in an authoritarian system. Ukraine’s campaign is a distinct case, however, because the targets are partly military and partly economic, and because the country conducting the strikes faces its own severe resource constraints.
Within Russia, the authorities have invested heavily in air defense, in redundant infrastructure, and in rapid repair capacity for energy and rail systems. The Kremlin has also tightened information controls since the start of the full-scale invasion, criminalizing speech that contradicts official characterizations of the war and restricting access to independent media. Whether those measures can absorb the cumulative effect of sustained strikes is a key uncertainty in the analysis.
What to watch next
Several indicators will help gauge whether Ukraine’s campaign is producing the effects its planners intend. The first is the scale and duration of disruptions to Russian energy output, particularly at refineries that supply fuel to the military and to agriculture during the spring planting season. Sustained outages at multiple facilities would suggest that repair capacity is being stretched, while rapid restoration would indicate that Russian defenses and redundancy measures are keeping pace.
A second indicator is the allocation of Russian resources to domestic air defense and infrastructure protection. If the Kremlin is forced to draw on systems, personnel, or funding that would otherwise support operations in Ukraine, the campaign is imposing a real opportunity cost, even if the effect on public opinion is muted.
A third indicator is the tone and content of Russian official statements and state media coverage. A shift toward acknowledging damage, or toward framing strikes as a serious threat rather than a nuisance, would suggest that the campaign is being treated as strategically significant inside Russia. Continued downplaying would suggest that the authorities believe they can manage the domestic narrative.
A fourth indicator is the response of Western partners. Continued or expanded provision of long-range strike systems, including permission to use them against a wider set of Russian targets, would signal allied confidence that the campaign is effective. Restriction or hesitation would suggest concern about escalation or about the humanitarian and political consequences of strikes on infrastructure that serves civilian populations.
Analysis
The effectiveness of Ukraine’s strategy of bringing the war home to Russia depends on factors that remain uncertain. Russia’s centralized political system and state-controlled information environment have so far limited the domestic political fallout from strikes on Russian territory, and the country’s capacity to absorb and repair damage to energy and transport infrastructure is more substantial than early assessments sometimes assumed. At the same time, sustained pressure on energy infrastructure could impose real economic costs over time, particularly if repair capacity is stretched, if sanctions limit access to specialized equipment, or if multiple facilities are hit in quick succession.
The political effect on Russian public opinion is the most difficult variable to assess. Polling conducted inside Russia operates under severe constraints, and surveys of Russian-speaking populations conducted abroad are not necessarily representative. Anecdotal reporting from Russian regions affected by strikes suggests a range of responses, from anger at Ukrainian attacks to frustration with local authorities, but translating those responses into a national political signal is not straightforward in a system that filters dissent.
The strategic effect on the Russian war effort may prove more measurable than the political effect. If strikes on refineries and rail hubs reduce the fuel and logistics available to Russian forces, or force the redeployment of air defense systems from the front lines, the campaign will have imposed a concrete military cost regardless of how ordinary Russians react. Whether that cost is sufficient to alter the Kremlin’s strategic calculations will depend on its cumulative scale and duration, and on Russia’s ability to adapt.
Conclusion
Ukraine’s campaign to bring the war home to Russia represents a deliberate effort to change the strategic environment by making the costs of the war visible to the Russian public and to the Russian economy. The approach has expanded as Western-supplied long-range capabilities have given Kyiv the means to reach deeper into Russian territory, and it has been accompanied by a more explicit Ukrainian public framing of the campaign as a tool of pressure. Whether the strategy succeeds in altering Kremlin decision-making or Russian public attitudes will depend on the scale and duration of strikes, on Russia’s ability to repair and adapt, and on the continued willingness of Western partners to supply the systems that make deep strikes possible. As of early 2026, the operational impact remains difficult to quantify with precision, but the campaign has clearly entered a phase in which the war’s effects are no longer confined to the front lines.
Sources
The Conversation – Global. “How Ukraine is bringing the war home to Russia.” https://theconversation.com/how-ukraine-is-bringing-the-war-home-to-russia-290140
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Conversation – Global — source
