ANALYSIS: Moscow counts 613 drones and answers that the war must continue, while Trump holds Kyiv back

Six hundred thirteen.

That is the number of drones launched at Moscow in a single night, if its mayor, Sergey Sobyanin, is to be believed.

The war the Kremlin started was prowling over its own capital. The attack lasts hours.

Three airports out of four

Sobyanin claims that 231 of those drones were shot down on approach to the city. He names no target.

Flights were restricted at three of the four major airports in the region. Moscow’s sky closes.

Zhukovsky reopened. Vnukovo and Domodedovo stayed limited. The waiting begins.

Peskov speaks on the 29th

On October 29, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists that the war “must continue.”

Two words.

Donald Trump, for his part, is pressing Kyiv to spare Russian refineries. He insists.

The night of October 28 to 29 does not say who is winning. It says whom Washington restrains.

Kyiv still strikes far. Moscow still closes its runways.

And Kyiv is asked to spare what used to hurt.

October has a calendar. It is written overhead.

October 6.

Ukraine reportedly launched 650 drones at the region, and a fire reportedly hit a large oil facility.

Sobyanin then speaks of the largest attack on the region in two years.

A plant, then runways

The 22nd. An arms plant is hit. It is not a refinery.

The 23rd. All four airports stop.

All of them.

The evening of the 28th.

Russian air defense begins repelling the attack before 10:30 p.m. local time, the Kyiv Independent reports. The night drags on.

Through the night, Sobyanin announces several waves of several dozen drones, and emergency crews at work on the crash sites.

Two flights from Istanbul turned back because of restrictions at Vnukovo, state news agency TASS reports. The runways wait.

Residents report explosions near Naro-Fominsk, some 50 kilometers from Moscow, according to the Astra outlet.

The mayor’s numbers

The Kyiv Independent could not independently confirm Sobyanin’s figures at the time of publication.

I take them as Moscow’s version. Nothing more.

The runways do not lie.

At least four nights. A single capital.

Kyiv keeps its long reach.

The refineries, meanwhile, breathe.

Ryazan on the 15th, then Saint Petersburg

October 15, Ryazan. Its refinery is hit.

The 18th, Saint Petersburg.

After that, nothing.

Ten days later, Moscow counts.

In recent weeks, Ukrainian strikes on refineries have slowed markedly, amid pressure from Donald Trump. The slowdown has a name.

Russian refineries got a reprieve.

No order, says Zelensky

Volodymyr Zelensky says his forces received no order to hold back. The pace, though, has changed.

Drones are not lacking. The proof flew over Moscow.

Those strikes targeted a key source of the Russian state budget. The nerve, not the showcase.

A closed runway reopens.

A struck refinery empties pumps. Washington chose which to spare.

Crimea on the list

Unrestricted fuel sales resumed in 15 regions in October, including occupied Crimea and Sevastopol, according to Izvestia, close to the Russian state.

Fifteen regions in one month.

Back to summer. Strikes were disrupting the refineries.

Lines grew longer. Purchases were limited.

October loosens the grip.

Tambov still rations

Not everything is solved.

In Tambov, gasoline remains rationed. Filling jerry cans is banned.

Districts of Leningrad Oblast still struggle to get supplies. Pockets, not a crisis.

The Russian pump tells the story of American pressure better than any press release. The liter is proof.

Across the line, Russia keeps attacking Ukrainian energy facilities.

A one-way reprieve.

Moscow’s runways close for one night. Russia’s pumps, meanwhile, reopen.

A table for three

Washington’s argument holds up.

A table is being set. Ukraine, Russia and the United States are aiming for a new round of trilateral talks, with no confirmed date.

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s envoys, went to Ukraine and Russia. An agreement in principle followed.

The meeting targeted October. Nothing happened. October is ending.

Zelensky says he expects talks in mid-November, with no date confirmed by Washington.

The calendar slips.

Washington denies

Calming energy is defensible. A table is worth a reprieve.

Donald Trump urged Kyiv to stop striking Russian refineries. The gesture is public.

The U.S. administration denies ordering restrictions to pressure Kyiv.

The denial counts.

The argument hits a snag. Those refineries help fund the war against Ukraine.

Russia’s treasury says thanks.

The calculation backfires.

Trump declares, on October 11

On October 11, Donald Trump unilaterally declares an energy truce, then, according to Zelensky, Ukraine halts its refinery strikes for three days.

Washington decides alone.

Russia, for its part, kept striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure during the “truce.”

Moscow suspended nothing.

Alerts, Starlink, Patriot

Ukrainian officials believe they see a pressure campaign coming from Washington.

Missile alerts were disrupted. They depend on U.S. intelligence.

Starlink, military version, was restricted. Kyiv steers interceptors with it.

Kyiv also says it saw delays in Patriot missile deliveries.

Three defensive tools. None of them strikes Russia.

The KIIS institute hopes for de-escalation, and cites the resumption of Starshield and of full intelligence.

The pressure has an address.

Self-praise, then the war

Peskov opens with self-praise. “Our air defense systems are working effectively,” he says.

The compliment lasts one sentence.

The rest flips the argument.

In his view, the attack shows the situation continues, and that the war must go on to protect Russia from threats.

The defense holds. So the war continues.

Kremlin logic.

“Strange,” says Peskov

Peskov also calls “strange” such a massive attack during a “global-scale” event in Moscow. The word is chosen.

The event: the Russia-Africa summit.

Russian authorities report no casualties and no damage. The night becomes an argument.

Moscow whines about the calendar.

The Kremlin counts the drones, then it counts on the war.

The Grand Palace, 3 p.m.

At 3 p.m. on October 29, Vladimir Putin co-chairs the plenary session of the Russia-Africa summit at the Grand Kremlin Palace.

Same day, same city.

Representatives of about 50 African countries take part, according to the Kremlin. A showcase.

Three words for a motto. “For peace, security and development”.

Peace comes first.

Putin talks settlement

Putin then slips in Ukraine.

Moscow is also working, he says, on a possible peaceful settlement. Peace returns to the microphone.

He cites a planned operation to help civilians, backed by the U.S. first lady. The nod targets Washington.

Peskov talks war. Putin talks settlement.

One sentence for the room. Another for the press.

The Kremlin speaks with a forked tongue.

The 28th, a condition

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said on October 28 that the start of talks would depend on the battlefield.

The front sets the agenda.

The Kremlin had already refused. It accused Kyiv of attacks on election day, September 20.

The Donbas, still

Moscow has repeatedly rejected a full and unconditional ceasefire. The West proposed it. Kyiv backed it.

Moscow still demands the Donbas. The demand does not move.

Across the line, most Ukrainians still refuse a withdrawal from the Donbas, the KIIS institute notes.

Two refusals face to face.

Kyiv strikes, the war continues. Kyiv restrains, the front decides.

Moscow keeps the upper hand.

From October 16 to 25

From October 16 to 25, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology reached 828 respondents by phone. They were drawn at random.

Ukrainians who left abroad after 24 February 2022 are not included. Neither are the occupied territories.

The question spares no one.

The scenario is blunt: Washington threatens to cut or curb its support, Moscow commits to nothing.

80% versus 11%

80% back further attacks.

11% want them stopped. 8% are unsure.

The threat is not enough.

76% hold to armed resistance, even if Russia attacks energy this winter.

63% say they are ready to endure the war for as long as it takes. It has barely moved since summer.

One number is awkward.

In the East, armed resistance falls from 68% to 58% since August-September, and giving in to Russian demands rises from 15% to 24%.

Ten points down. Nine points up.

The institute rates these shifts within the margin of error. Everywhere, the majority holds.

Fairly large-scale power outages have already begun, the institute writes. Winter is coming.

If you live in Kyiv, the question is not theoretical. It comes without light.

From 43% to 62%

On October 8 and 9, according to KIIS, 43% of respondents trusted Zelensky. 52% distrusted him.

From October 16 to 25, trust rises to 62%. Distrust falls to 35%.

Nineteen points. A possible bias, KIIS warns.

Between the two measurements, the institute writes, came the diesel deal and American pressure.

Before October 9, trust was slipping below 50%, with a negative balance, KIIS recalls. The starting point was low.

“Rallying around the flag”

The institute sees a very likely “rallying around the flag” effect. The country closes ranks.

Its executive director, Anton Grushetskyi, describes a triple pressure. Three pressures, one country.

The first comes from the Russian enemy, its jet drones and its ballistic missiles.

The second comes from domestic actors, the last from a strategic partner: the United States.

A surge, not carte blanche.

Grushetskyi warns that the ceiling of trust remains lower than in 2025, and cautions those in power against “dizziness from success.”

The warning targets Kyiv.

Washington wanted fewer strikes. It gets closed ranks.

The price at the pump

Is your fill-up expensive?

Donald Trump blames the global rise in fuel prices on Ukrainian strikes.

The Kyiv Independent writes that this is false, and points instead to Trump’s war against Iran.

If you pay too much for gas, Washington points you to Kyiv. Iran drops out of frame.

The price, though, stays high.

Kyiv disrupts, Moscow cashes in

Kyiv disrupts the Moscow sky. It happens again.

The budget lever, meanwhile, slows. Washington holds the controls.

Kyiv gains reach. Moscow gains fuel.

Moscow gives up nothing.

The pressure is misaddressed.

The Kremlin pockets reopening pumps, a truce it did not follow, a table subject to the front and a war that must continue.

The referee leans toward Moscow.

Six hundred thirteen, again

Six hundred thirteen drones, if Moscow is to be believed.

Ten days, no refinery hit.

Two words from the Kremlin. The math is quick.

Restraint benefits Moscow. Moscow restrained nothing.

A question for Washington

Six hundred thirteen drones according to Moscow, and Kyiv pressed to spare the refineries.

Moscow counts 613 drones and answers that the war must continue, while Trump holds Kyiv back.

If the Kremlin itself judges that its war must last, why ask Kyiv to spare what funds it?

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.