Revealed: Zelensky’s drone blitzkrieg on the ‘Russian Amazon’ is turning shellshocked public against Putin’s war
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Ukraine has reportedly intensified long-range drone strikes against a major Russian logistics and retail hub, described as the "Russian Amazon", as part of a wider campaign to disrupt Russia's economy and war effort. The strikes are said to be causing visible shock among ordinary Russians and appear to be denting public support for President Vladimir Putin's continuation of the war, according to the report.
The article, drawing on Ukrainian sources, suggests President Volodymyr Zelensky's forces are deliberately targeting infrastructure with everyday economic significance to Russian civilians, rather than purely military sites, in an effort to bring the costs of the war home to the domestic population. Specific figures on the number of strikes, casualties or economic damage were not detailed in the available text.
- Ukraine steps up drone strikes on a major Russian logistics hub
- Attacks reportedly shaking Russian public confidence in the war
- Zelensky's campaign aims to erode domestic support for Putin
New here? Start with this
Russia’s large online retailers and logistics centres store and move goods across the country, linking warehouses, delivery services and customers. A major hub can therefore serve both commercial needs and the wider supply networks on which businesses and households depend.
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine has used long-range drones to strike targets inside Russia. The two countries are led by Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin, respectively, and both governments describe their actions as part of the war effort.
Attacks on infrastructure used by civilians can affect daily life as well as economic activity, while also raising questions about how far the effects of war reach into Russia. Claims that such strikes are changing public opinion are difficult to assess without reliable evidence about their impact and people’s views.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that Ukraine has a legitimate right to strike economic and logistical targets that sustain Russia's war machine, especially when conventional front-line gains are hard-won. Undermining public confidence in the rouble and the banking system, they contend, is a legitimate form of pressure that could hasten an end to the war by making its costs tangible to ordinary Russians, not just the military. They would add that a population growing anxious about its savings is more likely to question a leadership that has prioritised war spending over economic stability, and that this kind of pressure is a proportionate alternative to more destructive means.
The case against
Others caution that strikes and disinformation campaigns aimed at rattling civilian confidence in banks and the economy blur the line between military and civilian targets, and risk normalising economic warfare against ordinary citizens who have little control over Kremlin decision-making. They would argue that provoking bank runs or panic, even indirectly, could cause disproportionate harm to ordinary savers and small businesses while doing little to change the calculations of a leadership insulated from such pressures. There is also concern that framing this as a psychological victory risks overstating its strategic impact and understates the human cost of economic instability for people who did not choose the war.