Ukraine has a theory of victory. It does not involve recapturing all occupied territory in a single decisive battle. It involves making Russia unable to continue the war.
The strategy, developed by former Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk and laid out in a 2025 Carnegie Endowment paper, is built on three axes: sever supply lines to Crimea, choke off Putin’s war budget by destroying oil infrastructure, and target Russian defense-industrial supply chains to disrupt production of precision weapons.
The end goal is a “steel porcupine,” a Ukraine that can hold Russia at bay indefinitely, without necessarily liberating every inch of occupied land.
For the first time since the war began, there is evidence the strategy might be working.
The oil campaign
The centerpiece of Ukraine’s strategy is the systematic destruction of Russia’s oil refining capacity. Oil and gas revenues provide about 30 percent of Russian state income, roughly $120 billion in 2024, with 85 percent from crude oil.
Ukraine has launched 194 strikes on Russian oil infrastructure since January 2026, 11 times more than in the same period of 2025. In May alone, 16 refineries were hit. In June, Ukraine struck 11 refineries and eight defense plants in a single month, with strikes reaching more than 2,000 kilometers into Russian territory.
The results are visible. Over half of Russia’s regions have announced fuel shortages or rationing. On July 8, Russia banned exports of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Moscow is now importing gasoline from India, a humiliation for one of the world’s largest crude producers.
Bloomberg data shows refinery utilization has fallen 14 percent since the start of 2026.
The weapons that make it possible
The deep-strike campaign is no longer dependent on Western missiles with permission restrictions. Ukraine has developed its own systems:
- Peklo: A missile-drone hybrid with a 700-kilometer range, operational since December 2024.
- Flamingo: A cruise missile with a range of roughly 3,000 kilometers, operational since August 2025. It recently struck the Omsk refinery, 2,400 kilometers (1,500 miles) from the front line.
- Hornet: An AI-assisted one-way attack drone developed with a US startup backed by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. It is designed to evade Russian jamming.
Ukraine is also close to fielding its own ballistic missiles, which would carry more explosive power than the drones and cruise missiles now in use.
These systems operate without restriction. Ukraine does not need Washington’s permission to strike targets inside Russia. It builds the weapons, aims them, and fires.
The Crimea campaign
Ukraine is applying the same model it used against the Russian Black Sea Fleet, “functional defeat” rather than total destruction. The fleet was not sunk in its entirety, but it was rendered incapable of operating effectively. Russia withdrew most of its ships from Sevastopol.
The Crimea campaign follows the same logic. Ukraine is using naval drones and Hornet drones to cut supply lines to the peninsula. Russian forces withdrew from the Kinburn Spit in late June after Ukraine destroyed supply links. Fuel shortages have pushed prices in Crimea to 130-150 rubles per liter, roughly double Moscow prices.
Ukrainian commanders say they aim to cut off Russian supply lines to Crimea by the end of summer 2026. They describe this as a “huge humiliation for Putin.”
The challenges
The strategy has limits. Russia still has vast resources, a large ballistic missile inventory, and the capacity to mobilize hundreds of thousands more soldiers. The deep-strike campaign needs to degrade Russia’s war-making capacity faster than Russia can adapt.
A historical parallel is instructive. The Modern War Institute at West Point compares Ukraine’s campaign to Allied strategic bombing in World War II. Early bombing of Romanian oil fields had limited effect. It was only late in the war, when the Allies also targeted mobility, roads, bridges, railways, that Germany could neither produce nor move combat power. Ukraine likely needs a similar convergence.
The political risks are real. Right-wing populist gains in France and Germany could reduce European support. The US, under Trump, has already stopped direct military donations. European allies pledged €70 billion at the recent NATO summit, but much of that repackages existing commitments.
And then there is the question of time. The Foreign Policy article that broke the story of Ukraine’s theory of victory notes that like the strategic bombing campaigns of World War II, the effects may take years to fully cripple Russia. Whether Ukraine has years, or whether European and American patience holds that long, is the open question.
For now, Ukraine has a plan. It has the weapons to execute it. It has demonstrated it can hit targets 2,000 kilometers inside Russia. The strategy is no longer theoretical. It is being tested in real time, strike by strike, refinery by refinery.