Drone strikes on Moscow serve as pressure tool against Russia, expert says
Ukraine is deliberately striking economically sensitive targets in Russia, creating significant financial losses for the aggressor state.
This was stated in an interview with Ukrinform by military expert and former SSU officer Ivan Stupak.
According to him, Ukraine is targeting key sources of revenue for the Kremlin – oil infrastructure, ports, and industrial facilities, including those in Ust-Luga, Primorsk, Novorossiysk (the Sheskharis terminal), as well as fertilizer plants.
“Western analysts estimated that over the past year, the Russian Federation lost around €10 billion in the oil sector alone due to strikes by Ukraine’s Defense Forces and sanctions. These are serious sums,” the expert said.
He added that major Russian companies are also suffering significant losses. In particular, he said that Lukoil, once considered extremely profitable before the full-scale invasion, lost around $13 billion in 2025 due to a combination of Ukrainian strikes and international pressure.
At the same time, Stupak stressed that the current strikes are primarily a form of sustained attrition.
“This is painful for the Russian budget, but it is not yet critical. It is continuous pressure that creates problems, but does not systematically undermine the economy,” he explained.
The expert noted that a key limitation is the capability of strike systems. According to him, most drones carry a warhead of 50-70 kg, which is significantly less than missiles can deliver.
He also said that the development of missile capabilities could change the situation. In particular, prospective Ukrainian missiles could carry warheads of up to one ton, which would be capable of inflicting critical damage on facilities such as oil refineries.
Stupak also emphasized that Russian infrastructure is being repaired relatively quickly.
“The average recovery time for oil refineries after being hit is two to three weeks,” he said.
At the same time, the expert stressed the importance of continuing strikes even in the absence of immediate strategic effects.
“If there is no possibility of delivering a decisive blow, then at least systematic damage must be inflicted so that Russian companies incur losses and remain under constant pressure,” he said.
According to him, in the long term, continuous strikes could make the restoration of facilities economically unfeasible.
Commenting on Russia’s air defense capabilities, Stupak warned against underestimating them, while also noting resource constraints.
“The Russians are forced to respond to a large number of drones approaching from different directions and cannot always immediately distinguish strike drones from decoys. As a result, they expend significant air defense resources,” he explained.
He also highlighted the logic of strikes on Moscow, saying they serve both military and psychological purposes.
In particular, these attacks test the ability of drones to penetrate the dense air defense system around the Russian capital, which reportedly includes up to 70 positions.
“If a drone passes through such a zone, it means it can also operate effectively in other regions of Russia where defenses are weaker,” Stupak noted.
In addition, strikes on Moscow serve a deterrent function.
“This is an element of coercion – to prevent Russia from redeploying air defense systems away from the capital to other directions. They are forced to keep maximum protection concentrated around Moscow, and that works in our favor,” he concluded.
As reported by Ukrinform, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukrainian strikes on Russian facilities have become more effective due to improved technologies and new strategies.