The images coming out of Moscow in recent days speak for themselves: Ukrainian drone strikes on targets in Moscow have brought the war to the heart of state power and exposed the limits of Russia’s air defenses.
The Kremlin’s narrative of a controlled “special military operation” has been significantly undermined. President Volodymyr Zelensky describes the strikes as an “absolutely fair response.”
But are these developments more than symbolic? Is the war at a turning point? Political scientist Gustav Gressel is cautious on this point.
Stefan Schocher: Are the strikes something new?
Gustav Gressel: The attack is clearly a signal to Moscow – and that was its purpose. Before May 9, Russia issued strong threats about any disruption to its Victory Day parade, even warning it could destroy Kyiv. The message was: “We can do this, you can’t.”
A ceasefire and prisoner exchange followed, though the exchange turned out to be smaller than expected. Shortly afterward, Russia once again resumed strikes on Ukraine.
From Ukraine’s perspective, there is also concern that Russia is pursuing a strategy of sustained terror strikes to wear the country down. Ukraine knows defending against such attacks will become harder over time, so this strike signals: “Mass attacks on us don’t come for free; we can do that too.”
In other words, Ukraine is showing it can escalate as well. So far, Russian responses remain largely focused near the front line. It remains to be seen how the situation evolves.
Zelensky called the strikes proportionate. Is that accurate, given that Russia often targets civilian sites in Ukraine?
Ukraine is generally more careful with regard to civilian harm. Many Russian strikes that hit civilian buildings were likely intended for military targets but missed due to poor accuracy.
At the same time, some attacks clearly appear intended to spread fear – targeting cultural sites, hospitals or civilian infrastructure.
If Ukraine can strike deep into Moscow, that sends a strong political message to the Kremlin.
Are these strikes primarily about military impact or visibility?
The visibility is more of a side effect. But there are two main objectives.
First, to damage Russia’s revenue by targeting oil and gas infrastructure, especially export routes.
Second, to hit military targets – weapons production, ammunition storage, and facilities producing long-range weapons. Ukraine lacks sufficient air defense to intercept all incoming weapons, so disrupting production is critical.
Ukraine appears to have adapted effectively. What explains this?
There is no clear advantage. In terms of production, Ukraine has certain strengths due to its decentralized defense industry. If Russia strikes one factory, it affects only a small part of production.
In Russia, the defense industry is highly centralized. Striking a single plant can disrupt an entire production chain.
Ukraine’s recent success is also linked to medium-range strikes reaching up to 200 kilometers (124 miles). Reconnaissance drones at that range have become highly effective.
These attacks degrade Russian air defenses. Once that defensive belt is weakened, deeper strikes become easier.
What does this say about the US role, especially given disruptions in military aid?
US unreliability was one factor behind the development of these capabilities. Medium-range systems were, in part, intended to replace HIMARS.
There are limitations: ammunition supplies are controlled by the US, making Ukraine dependent. Russian forces also learned to jam GPS guidance used by HIMARS, and the systems are costly.
So this pushed Ukraine to invest more heavily in drone technology.
Russia is increasingly using the language of “dialogue” and “diplomacy.” Is this meaningful?
The Kremlin has made clear it has not changed its war aims. Putin has reaffirmed them.
The rhetoric is part of the war effort – a form of political messaging rather than a genuine shift in position.