Ahead of the new heating season, Russia is once again intensifying attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the question arises: can Ukraine respond with strikes on Russia’s energy sector? UNN examined this issue together with experts in the military and energy sectors.
A new season of Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy sector
At the end of August, Russia intensified its attacks on Ukraine’s energy sector. Once again, electricity and heat generation facilities, gas production sites, and other critical infrastructure came under attack. This means that Russia is once again trying to create problems for Ukraine before the cold weather begins, so that the winter will be as difficult as possible.
According to NPC "Ukrenergo," as of the morning of August 24, Russian strikes had caused power outages in Donetsk, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, and Mykolaiv regions. Energy facilities in Kyiv and the surrounding region were also attacked. The Russians struck the Kherson Thermal Power Plant, which is the city’s main source of heat.
At the same time, attacks on the energy sector are not limited to electricity generation. The Russian Federation is systematically attempting to damage gas and oil production facilities—resources that will directly affect how the winter is managed.
According to Naftogaz, in just one week in August, Russia attacked the group’s facilities in various regions of Ukraine 13 times, using missiles and drones. Some facilities ceased operations because of the damage.
The scale of the campaign is significantly larger if the entire year is considered. As of early August, the facilities of the Naftogaz Group had endured 287 Russian attacks since the beginning of 2026—more than during all of 2025 and the first three years of the full-scale war combined.
On August 7, seven Ukrnafta assets that ensure oil and gas production in eastern Ukraine came under attack at once. Critically important equipment was destroyed, and some facilities had to be shut down, resulting in the loss of part of the production.
Thus, Russia is trying to create problems not when temperatures have already fallen below zero, but in advance—during the period of accumulating resources, carrying out repairs, and preparing the energy system for winter.
Does Ukraine have anything with which to respond to the Russian Federation’s strikes?
Military experts interviewed by UNN note that Ukraine does have the means to strike back at Russian attacks.
To understand the situation, according to the Ministry of Defense of the occupying country, the Ukrainian side attacks the territory of the Russian Federation every day with between 400 and 600 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles. A record was even recorded when, over the course of one day, strikes on Russian territory were carried out using 1,600 drones. In other words, there are means with which to strike. Accordingly, the question arises of changing the tactics and strategy of delivering strikes. In addition, the Ukrainian side already has FP-5 cruise missiles, which have undergone successful testing and have been used in successful strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation, including against the military-industrial complex enterprise Votkinsk Plant. Another positive example
In his opinion, the issue now is to determine priorities for using these means of destruction.
The first question is: why are we not using these capabilities? At present, the main strikes are focused on Wildberries or Ozon warehouses. This makes for striking imagery, but it will not produce the immediate social-pressure and pressure-on-the-Russian-economy consequences that strikes specifically against energy infrastructure could deliver
Nevertheless, even strikes on logistics hubs have an impact. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that the amount of direct losses from Ukrainian strikes on logistics hubs is estimated at one trillion rubles, which amounts to approximately 12.5 billion dollars.
At the same time, aviation expert Valerii Romanenko takes a more restrained view of the situation regarding strikes on energy facilities. In his opinion, drones have performed well against a number of types of targets, but their capabilities may be insufficient to guarantee the destruction of large and well-protected targets.
We are already striking Russia's energy sector; Crimea is without electricity, and the Bryansk region is experiencing constant power problems. But for this to become widespread and very tangible for Russia, we need more effective weapons for this purpose—ones that can destroy a power plant with a single strike, allowing us to destroy both above-ground and underground facilities. For now, however, we cannot do this effectively enough because of the vast territory and the difference in strike potential
According to the expert, to increase the effectiveness of long-range strikes, Ukraine primarily needs ballistic weapons, as well as the active use of cruise missiles.
We simply need more powerful means. The same cruise missiles and ballistic weapons. In terms of the number of drones, they work effectively against oil refineries. They work effectively against transport. But against protected targets and large targets, drones perform much worse. For example, we have so far been unable to strike the Shahed production facility in Tatarstan, which is well protected by an air defense system. Therefore, to increase effectiveness, we need more powerful means
It is currently known that the Ukrainian long-range weapons manufacturer Fire Point is completing work on ballistic weapons. In particular, the 200-kilometer FP-7 missile is planned to be tested in the near future during a strike on Russian territory. Another ballistic missile, the FP-9, with a range of 800–850 kilometers, will be ready by the end of the year.
For his part, Dmytro Sniehyrov sees the solution in combined attacks that would enable the penetration of Russia's air defense.
If we are talking about a combined attack on an energy facility, or several facilities—but no more than three at a time, without going into details—that is, a combined attack involving decoy drones, fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, and, most importantly, FP-5 Flamingo cruise missiles, the air defense of the Russian Federation will be unable to resist. We will break through the air defense system. The latest strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation, including Moscow, demonstrate this—the Moscow oil refinery, which they were unable to protect
Flamingos should be a common bird and winter in Russia - Zelenskyy24.08.26, 09:43
Wait for the frosts or strike the energy sector earlier?
Another fundamental question is when it is best to launch strikes and whether Ukraine's response to Russian attacks should also be tied to the cold weather.
Sniehyrov considers such reasoning mistaken; he is convinced that strikes should not be postponed.
We need to strike now. The point is that it is practically September already—in a month, the heating season will begin, and accordingly, preparations for the heating season are underway. We need to disrupt the preparation process itself. Moreover, attacks on the energy sector must be systematic
He calls the systematic nature of such pressure the key factor.
If not every day, then at least once a week, a specific Russian energy facility should be hit. Systematic work
Military expert Oleh Zhdanov also believes there is no point in waiting for the cold weather to arrive, since electricity affects not only the comfort of the population but also the functioning of the economy and infrastructure.
There is no electricity, there is no water, there is no sewage system, and there is no large part of the food supply because refrigerators are needed to store and transport it, and so on
According to him, disruptions in electricity supplies can also affect transport and industry.
Traction substations ensure the movement of trains, as well as urban transport, which is mostly electric. Trolleybuses, trams, the metro
Thus, military experts are convinced that strikes on Russia's energy sector should be not merely a mirror response to Russian attacks, but also one of the means of applying economic pressure.
Could attacks on Russia’s energy sector become a deterrent?
Sniehyriov believes that, in general, Ukraine should abandon the logic whereby a response comes only after another wave of Russian attacks. He believes Kyiv should abandon “mirroring,” which is more suited to the position of a victim, and move toward positioning itself as “we are the predator.”
He is convinced that such an approach would increase the cost for Russia of continuing its campaign against Ukraine’s energy system.
We must create the conditions under which they will not be able to strike our energy sector because they will understand that their energy sector has collapsed, and if they continue, there will accordingly be even worse consequences
At the same time, the previous years of the war have shown that Russia is prepared to expend significant missile and drone resources to destroy Ukraine’s energy sector even without causing a complete collapse of the energy system.
Electricity or oil: which target is more effective?
Not all experts agree that Russian electricity facilities should be destroyed as a priority. Energy expert Hennadiy Riabtsev does not consider Russia’s electricity sector the optimal direction for using Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities.
I am not a supporter of strikes on energy facilities in Russia. This is because examples of massive strikes on Ukraine’s energy sector indicate that such attacks are not highly effective. If even the Russian Federation, using hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones, failed to cause irreparable or significant damage or plunge Ukraine into darkness, then, unfortunately, Ukraine, with a sufficiently small number and range of strike capabilities, is unlikely to be able to significantly disrupt the operation of Russia’s energy systems
In his view, the direction in which Ukraine has already demonstrated its ability to create significant problems for Russia remains much more promising. This is oil refining and oil logistics.
In my view, it is much better to continue systematic efforts to destroy Russia’s oil-refining industry. And here, these strikes on the oil-refining and oil-transport infrastructure of the Russian Federation are capable of complicating support for the Russian armed forces much more than strikes on the electricity sector or on Wildberries, Ozon and other warehouses
The military regularly attacks Russian oil refineries, which has already created tangible problems in the fuel sector of the aggressor country. According to Reuters, strikes on refineries and the reduction of available capacity caused another fuel shortage in Russia in August; Moscow was forced to restrict gasoline sales at some filling stations, ban diesel exports and import fuel. The fuel crisis in Russia is expected to deepen, and the export ban will remain in effect in September.
The strike was also illustrative of the FP-1 long-range drones on the Omsk Oil Refinery. The facility, with a capacity of about 5.8 million tonnes per year, halted operations. According to experts, because Russia depends on foreign equipment, access to which is restricted by sanctions, restoring the damaged capacity may take a long time.
For example, in July, the volume of oil refining in Russia fell to 3.91 million barrels per day, the lowest figure since March 2005.
A blow to Russia’s revenues: why experts are focusing on oil terminals
Volodymyr Omelchenko, director of energy programs at the Razumkov Centre, proposes going even further and looking not only at Russia’s domestic fuel supply, but at the source of the foreign-currency revenues that allow the Kremlin to continue financing the war.
In my view, the main targets for Ukraine on Russian territory, if such long-range capabilities become available—they already partly exist, but without ballistic weapons it is difficult to carry this out—should be export terminals in the Black and Baltic seas. In the Baltic Sea, these are the Primorsk and Vysotsk terminals; in the Black Sea, it is Tuapse. These main terminals are, I think, the most important targets for Ukrainians
The logic is that damage to export infrastructure directly strikes Russia’s ability to sell energy resources abroad and therefore directly affects the inflow of foreign currency.
If these export terminals are shut down, Russia will simply have no choice but to stop the war, since it will have no money for the war, as these very terminals provide Russia with money for the war. Russia exports through them and earns the lion’s share of its money
Recent events demonstrate the vulnerability of Russian exports to disruptions. According to Reuters, in the first half of August, oil exports from Russia’s western ports were approximately 15% below the planned level. One of the reasons was disruptions affecting the Black Sea route amid Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure.
What is ultimately more effective
The discussion surrounding a possible response to Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure actually goes far beyond the principle of “they strike our power plants—we should strike theirs.”
Ukraine already has the capability to strike targets deep in the Russian rear, and the further development of its own long-range systems will only expand these capabilities. However, the resources represented by such weapons remain valuable, and therefore the key question is not only whether Ukraine can attack Russia’s energy infrastructure, but also where each long-range weapon used will inflict the greatest damage on Russia’s war machine.
Therefore, Ukraine faces not so much the question of whether to respond at all to Russian attacks on its energy infrastructure, but rather the choice of the most economically and militarily effective form of such a response. However, one thing is clear: it is not worth waiting until Russia tries to turn the cold into a weapon against Ukrainians.