News of the damage must have certainly reached the most isolated bunkers.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been accused of retreating from the worsening reality of the invasion of Ukraine. But stunning footage taken from the Moscow skyline on Thursday certainly shows the moment even the thickest insulation around the Kremlin’s head could not protect him from the sounds of repeated explosions just 10 miles away, which sent thick black smoke wafting over the Russian capital and destroyed an oil refinery.
Videos posted by Russians on social media tell two stories. First, the capital’s air defenses – apparently in three rings – are penetrated by cheap, mass-produced drones that once plagued Ukraine but now fire back at Russia every night. The refinery lid was blown clean. Multiple fires broke out 16 miles from the Kremlin. Environmental disasters are certain to occur. The damage itself will affect fuel supplies and likely lead to queues at gas stations in the city that the Kremlin has fought long and hard to protect from the consequences of the war.
The second is the growing discontent of the Muscovite population and the political instability it may bring. The persistent posting of videos that Russian authorities have tried to restrict is indicative of growing dissent and ultimately stalled message management. Moscow’s skyline has been troubled by Ukraine since a small drone crashed into the Kremlin in May 2023, even leading to last month’s Victory Day parade being drastically scaled back. Thursday’s cacophonous and startling video, showing Ukrainian drones arriving in waves over flames to track one strike after another, marks the moment when it became clear to the world that the Kremlin was truly struggling.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the attack was a response to Russia’s relentless nightly shelling, which Kiev’s oldest and holiest churches joined on Monday. President Zelenskiy appears to have been further encouraged by the G7 meeting in Evian, where President Trump expressed both indifference and support for Ukraine’s plight.
Mr. Zelenskyy appears to have lowered his expectations for Mr. Trump to zero. But he did reveal one important thing he was looking for. It is a proposal — still unclear — that Ukraine might be able to license and mass-produce air defense systems and missiles made by the United States and Europe that are in short supply and slow to be replaced. This suggests a most transactional relationship, one in which Kiev could build weapons that would essentially take too long and too expensive in NATO factories to survive, and shows that Ukraine has more on its cards.
Given President Trump’s turbulent tone at the G7, it is unclear whether he remains motivated to pursue peace. Even he must understand what the Kremlin has so far ignored.
European countries are holding out hope that envoys from what Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni calls “middle powers” might once again encourage talks. Britain, France and Germany issued a statement 11 days ago reiterating their long-sought starting point for an agreement, including a unilateral cease-fire that was not an original start for Russia.
Given the dire stalemate on the battlefield and the struggle to defend Russia’s airspace, hope seems eternal that Putin will seek some sort of exit. In fact, he has made some opaque statements that suggest reconsideration. That is, that the agreement and the occupation of the whole island of Donba are not “mutually exclusive” ideas (whatever that means), that the war will end sometime soon, and that it may welcome former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder as a mediator with Europe. But even as President Putin acknowledged the economic damage caused by the Ukraine attack last week, he reacted in a way that suggested further retaliation.
As footage of black rain falling on cars in Moscow is released, the decision on the direction of the war will once again be left to the founder of the war, President Putin. It is perhaps optimistic to think that he will choose diplomacy and an end to the conflict that Western intelligence says has killed half a million of his countrymen in order to seize parts of Ukraine, about 0.7% of Russia’s vast territory.
Throughout the war, Putin’s choices did not go well. Because they believed it would take several weeks to capture Kiev. He trusted the military to maintain supply lines even if Russia collapsed in late 2022. Even giant Russia has conscription problems, allowing the waste of human resources with “meat grinder” raids in Donbass in 2023-2024. They believe that Donald Trump, through flattery and appeasement, can somehow extract useful concessions from Kiev.
For decades, President Putin has conjured the image of an unwavering, precise policy master. The scale of the disaster outside his walls and on the far front, where daily medium-range attacks by Ukraine are disrupting Russia’s supply lines and causing fuel shortages in occupied Crimea, must surely permeate his decision-making. But that may not immediately translate into a plea for a solution, perhaps quite the opposite.
This is a moment when President Putin cannot afford to show weakness. This is his war, and it will determine his fate both in the future and in history. His difficulties on the front are obvious, but he may convince himself that this is also a recoverable dip in the war’s fortunes—soon Russia will match Ukraine’s drone proficiency and increase its pace of territorial seizures.
Putin’s most dangerous situation is at home. Last week, he was forced to acknowledge the economic damage caused by the attack on Ukraine, accept that territory was not captured as quickly as he would have liked, and endure growing frustration over the internet shutdown. These are all confessions of reality from the Kremlin, whose war effort rarely accepted anything less than complete victory.
There are few obvious and practical ways for Putin to escalate the conflict without exacerbating the challenges at hand. Attacking NATO’s eastern states, as some have warned, would be a big gamble at a time when China’s military is struggling to control its smaller neighbor. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, a long-held background fear among some analysts, risks infuriating the United States, Europe, and perhaps even China, with little strategic benefit. (A show of power would be of little benefit to Putin if the consequences were dire.) And Russia is attacking Ukraine with all the means it already has: the use of the deadly Oleshnik ballistic missiles, limited by its own inventory.
After the failed wars of the past, major political changes took place in Russia. Moscow’s leading daily Moskovsky Komsomolets warned last month that “heavy geopolitical losses were sometimes more profitable than glorious victories.” Russia’s withdrawal from World War I sparked a brutal revolution. Russia’s defeat in Afghanistan signaled the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union. And Moscow leveled large parts of Grozny before granting autonomy to Chechnya in 1996. If that happens – which is unlikely – don’t expect easy change.
Until recently, President Putin’s 26 years at the helm of Russia have been characterized by strategic savvy, pragmatism, and enormous geopolitical influence. Not the relentless pursuit of military gains of the past four years. As soot fills the skyline, Moscow’s next move must be to accept its weakness and find a way to respond without projecting anything but strength. It’s a near-impossible task, but given the regime Putin has relentlessly imposed on Russia, it’s his sole responsibility.
