The belief that Ukraine cannot win the war using drones alone is widely held – and for good reason. Drone strikes, no matter how frequent or effective, will not march an army into Moscow or force Russia into surrender. They are a tool, not a solution.
Yet the assumption that Ukraine’s drone campaign is merely a nuisance to Russia, rather than a meaningful factor in shaping the war’s trajectory, may be outdated. If Ukraine doesn’t need to win solely with drones, then the real question is: what role do these strikes play in weakening Russia’s ability to sustain a prolonged war?
On February 11, Ukraine executed a long-range drone strike on Russia’s Saratov oil refinery which appears to be part of a much larger strategic pattern. In January alone, Ukraine hit 25 Russian energy facilities, inflicting significant damage to refineries, oil depots and logistics hubs. In early February, Ukraine hit three facilities in the space of five days.
Some of these facilities, like the Novoshakhtinsk oil refinery in Rostov Oblast, were forced to halt operations entirely. The economic and logistical consequences of these strikes extend far beyond any individual attack.
While drones alone will not win the war for Ukraine, they may not have to. Instead, they are part of a broader strategy that could make it far more difficult for Russia to sustain its invasion in the long run and, crucially, could give Ukraine more leverage in any potential peace negotiations.
However, Russia’s ability to adapt to these challenges – whether through increased domestic production, alternative supply chains or military adjustments – remains an open question.
RELATED CONTENT: Russia accuses Ukraine of deploying long-range kamikaze drones
Drones are forcing Russia to adapt, at a cost
One of Ukraine’s biggest challenges is Russia’s sheer depth of resources. The Russian military has a vast manpower advantage, significant industrial capacity and a largely intact domestic energy sector. If Ukraine hopes to shift the balance, it must find ways to stretch Russian defenses and disrupt its war economy.
Every successful drone strike forces Russia to respond, whether by reinforcing air defenses, relocating infrastructure or repairing damage. But these adaptations are not free.
Deploying sophisticated air defense systems across Russia’s massive territory means fewer are available on what is an extensive frontline. Redirecting resources to protect oil refineries, fuel depots and industrial centers weakens Russia’s ability to concentrate on offensive operations in Ukraine.
Deploying these assets across its energy network diverts them from frontline operations, where they are needed to counter Ukrainian missile and drone attacks on Russian troops. Ukraine has already demonstrated the ability to detect and exploit vulnerabilities in frontline defenses when it successfully captured Russian soil in the Kursk region for the first time last year.
Russia’s fuel infrastructure is a strategic weakness
History has repeatedly shown that fuel shortages can cripple a war effort. From Nazi Germany’s oil crisis in World War II to Iraq’s logistical struggles in the Gulf War, military campaigns grind to a halt without reliable fuel supplies.
Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil infrastructure are designed to create precisely this kind of pressure. Damaging refineries reduces Russia’s ability to process crude oil into usable fuel. Targeting oil storage sites disrupts military supply chains, making it harder to move troops and equipment efficiently.
For example, after repeated Ukrainian drone strikes, the Kristall oil depot in Saratov Oblast reportedly lost a large portion of its storage capacity. Meanwhile, the Novoshakhtinsk refinery in Rostov, with an annual processing capacity of 7.5 million tons, was forced to shut down entirely. These are not minor inconveniences; they are significant disruptions to Russia’s war logistics.
However, Russia’s vast oil industry and prioritization of military fuel needs mean that while these strikes may disrupt supply chains and increase costs, they are unlikely to create a full-scale military fuel crisis in the near term.
Even if Russia adapts by relocating production further inland or increasing security at key sites, these changes take time and resources. The longer Ukraine sustains this pressure, the more difficult it becomes for Russia to maintain uninterrupted fuel supplies.
Drones are just one part of Ukraine’s strategy
Crucially, drones are not operating in isolation. Ukraine is employing a mix of long-range missile strikes, sabotage operations inside Russian territory and special forces raids to complement its drone campaign.
Western-supplied Storm Shadow and ATACMS missiles have already proven effective in hitting Russian military targets far behind enemy lines. Meanwhile, acts of sabotage, such as the ongoing campaign to degrade Russian railway networks, further complicate Russia’s logistical planning.
By integrating drones with these other forms of attack, Ukraine is effectively pressuring Russia across multiple fronts. It doesn’t need a massive ground offensive to put strain on Russian supply lines – just enough sustained disruption to make the war increasingly costly for Moscow.
Economic and psychological impact: The war is becoming more expensive for Russia
War is not just fought on the battlefield; it is fought in the economy and in public perception. The financial burden of replacing destroyed infrastructure is mounting. Every refinery repair, every damaged storage tank and destroyed counter-drone system comes with a cost.
The more Ukraine forces Russia to invest in defending and rebuilding critical infrastructure, the more financial strain it places on Moscow’s war machine. And while Russia’s economy has proven resilient, there is a difference between being able to sustain a war and being able to win one.
RELATED CONTENT: Echodyne breaks down the battle of engagement economics
Public perception is another factor. Repeated attacks deep inside Russian territory undermine confidence in the Kremlin’s ability to protect key infrastructure. If these strikes escalate further – targeting even more economically vital regions – the political pressure on Putin could increase, especially if ordinary Russians begin to feel the war’s costs more directly.
A war of attrition works both ways
Ukraine is unlikely to win purely through a drone campaign, but winning the war and making it unwinnable for Russia are not the same thing.
The critical question is who can sustain the economic and logistical burden longer. If Ukraine can continue degrading Russia’s fuel infrastructure, forcing costly adaptations and stretching Russian defenses thin, then Russia’s ability to outlast Ukraine is not as inevitable as some might assume.
The belief that Ukraine cannot win with drones alone is correct – but also irrelevant.
This is a war of endurance. The more Ukraine can disrupt Russia’s logistical stability, the more difficult it becomes for Moscow to maintain its military momentum. If Ukraine succeeds in weakening Russia’s ability to continue fighting indefinitely, it may gain a stronger position in any future peace negotiations.
Drones are not intended to deliver a knockout blow; they are meant to tip the balance in a long and grinding conflict. By systematically targeting Russian fuel supplies, logistics hubs and military infrastructure, Ukraine is likely hoping to force Russia into an increasingly defensive posture – one that may prove unsustainable over time.
If Ukraine can keep up the pressure while securing continued Western support, the war’s trajectory may shift in ways that make a conventional Russian victory much harder to achieve.
Russia may hope to win by attrition, but Ukraine’s current strategy may be designed to ensure that attrition may not work in Russia’s favor for much longer.
RELATED CONTENT: Planned $725 million US package for Ukraine includes counter-drone systems
