COMMENTARY: Forty days of strikes — the pressure operation Zelensky launched

What it means to announce a 40-day operation

On June 26, 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly announced a 40-day pressure operation targeting Russian logistics and military infrastructure. This is not a victory declaration, nor a vague promise. It is an operationally named, dated, and owned strategy — an act of political communication as much as a military directive. And that act says a great deal about Kyiv's confidence in its own capabilities.

The decision to publicly announce a deep-strike campaign before it is complete is deliberately counterintuitive from a classic military standpoint. But Zelensky's logic differs: by making the operation public, he gives it a psychological and political dimension that multiplies its impact. Every subsequent strike is read as the execution of a plan — not an opportunistic action. This changes the perception of Ukrainian power.

The targets: logistics, infrastructure, fuel

The operation explicitly targets Russian military logistics — fuel depots, rail junctions, arms storage facilities, energy infrastructure. The strikes on the Kapotnya refineries in Moscow (June 18 and 25) and on Bashneft in Ufa (June 25) fit directly within this logic. Everything that feeds the Russian war machine — fuel, ammunition, supplies — falls within the perimeter of this operation.

Publicly announcing that you will strike for 40 days transforms the war into a controlled political spectacle. And I think that is brilliant. Putin reacts to accomplished facts. Zelensky, by contrast, creates anticipation — and every new strike becomes the confirmation of a coherent strategy, not just a roll of the dice. That is high-level war communication.

Summer 2026 as a window of opportunity

Summer 2026 offers Ukraine several converging windows of opportunity. Ukraine's long-range drones have reached operational maturity, as the strike on Ufa at over 1,300 km demonstrated. Russia's air defense network shows persistent gaps. And the NATO summit in Ankara on July 7 and 8, 2026 is approaching, creating a diplomatic window in which every successful strike strengthens Ukraine's position with its allies.

Launching the 40-day operation on the eve of the Ankara summit is not incidental. Zelensky arrives at the NATO negotiating table from a position of strength: his country is striking the Urals, maintaining pressure on Moscow, and demonstrating that Ukraine is capable of an autonomous offensive strategy. This is a powerful argument for securing greater military and financial support.

The operational constraints to overcome

A 40-day campaign consumes resources: drones, fuel, crews, intelligence. Ukraine must balance deep strikes on Russian territory against supporting defensive operations at the front. This tension is real — the enemy is still advancing in certain sectors, and every drone sent toward Moscow or Ufa is one not available for front-line operations.

The way Kyiv manages this trade-off reflects a strategic conviction: degrading Russian logistical and production capabilities over the long term is worth the short-term cost of reduced drone availability for immediate defense. It is a bet on duration — the same bet Ukraine has consistently made since the start of the full-scale war.

I am convinced that Zelensky is making the right calculation. Gaining ground centimeter by centimeter in the Donbas will not change the outcome of this war. But making Russia unable to finance and resupply its forces over time — that is a strategy for victory. The 40 days are the visible implementation of that conviction.

The peninsula as a secondary strategic target

Alongside strikes on Russia's continental refineries, the 40-day operation also targets occupied Crimea. The peninsula is the forward logistics base of Russian naval forces in the Black Sea and a supply hub for forces deployed in southern Ukraine. Striking its infrastructure — fuel depots, rail junctions, port installations — directly weakens the Russian posture on the southern front.

Ukraine has demonstrated since 2022 a remarkable capacity to strike high-value targets in Crimea: the Kerch Bridge, Russian warships, ammunition depots. Integrating Crimea into the 40-day campaign extends that pressure across all of Russia's southern logistics.

The effect on Russia's Black Sea Fleet

Russia's Black Sea Fleet has suffered considerable losses since 2022 — several vessels sunk or seriously damaged by Ukrainian naval drones and missiles. It has been forced to withdraw part of its units to Georgian ports or further east to shelter them. The sustained pressure on its supply bases in Crimea further limits its operational capacity.

This shrinking of the Russian fleet's freedom of action has direct consequences for operations in the Kerch Strait and for the naval blockade Moscow is attempting to maintain on Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov. Every successful strike in Crimea is a blow to the naval component of Russian strategy.

Crimea was supposed to be the quintessential Russian sanctuary — the 2014 geopolitical acquisition Putin cherished as proof of his greatness. Today, its depots burn and its fleet hides. There is something deeply satisfying in that reversal for anyone who believes in international justice.

Russia's rail network — the nerve of the war

Russia is a rail power: its railway network is one of the largest in the world and forms the backbone of its military logistics system. Ammunition, tanks, soldiers, fuel — almost everything travels by rail to reach the Ukrainian front. Railways are therefore, after refineries, the logical target of a deep disruption campaign.

Strikes on Russian rail nodes — marshaling yards, railway bridges, maintenance depots — are more complex to execute and confirm than strikes on refineries, whose fires are visible from commercial satellites. But they are part of the 40-day operation according to Kyiv's declarations, and their cumulative effect on the flow of Russian military convoys is real.

Russian logistical resilience and its limits

Russia has non-negligible logistical resilience. Its rail network is vast, with numerous alternative routes. It can reroute convoys, repair damaged tracks, use secondary roads. But every repair costs time and money. Every detour extends delivery schedules. And in a war of this intensity, logistical delays are paid for in men and ammunition.

Ukraine's strategy of continuous disruption — strike, allow partial repair, strike again — is designed to keep that logistical friction above the threshold of operational tolerance. It is not spectacular. But it is effective over time — and Ukraine is betting on time.

The war of attrition is the long game Putin thought he would win. He expected to exhaust Ukraine, its defenders, its allies. But by methodically attacking Russian logistics, Zelensky is playing the same game in return — with cards nobody handed him. I don't know who will win, but I know who deserves to.

The narrative war around the operation

The public announcement of the 40-day operation creates a narrative dynamic that operates on several levels. For Western allies, it demonstrates that Ukraine has a coherent strategy and can execute it — a decisive argument ahead of discussions on military and financial support at Ankara. For Russians, it creates a climate of anxious anticipation: the next strike is announced, but no one knows where or when.

For Ukrainians themselves, this campaign of visible and documented strikes has an important moral effect. After months of losses and difficult defensive fighting, watching images of Russian refineries in flames — in Moscow, in the Urals — sustains resistance and the conviction that the war can be won. The morale of a nation at war is as real a military resource as tanks and ammunition.

Zelensky, architect of an integrated strategy

Volodymyr Zelensky has often been described as an exceptional communicator. That reputation, earned since 2022, allows him to integrate communication into his military strategy in a way that few heads of state master. The 40-day operation is a perfect illustration of this integration: every strike is simultaneously a military act, a political message to allies, and a communication blow directed at Western public opinion.

In a world where support for Ukraine depends in part on Kyiv's ability to show that it uses resources effectively and can win, this mastery of the narrative is a front-rank strategic asset. Zelensky has understood, better than most, that modern wars are also won on screens.

Zelensky may be the reason Ukraine is still standing. Not alone, of course — it is his people who fight and die. But his ability to transform every strike into an argument for Western support, every military setback into a demonstration of resilience: that is wartime political leadership at the highest level. And I hope history gives him credit for it.

A doctrine of victory through adversary exhaustion

The 40-day operation is not a one-off move. It is part of a Ukrainian doctrine of victory through adversary exhaustion — a doctrine that acknowledges the raw power imbalance between Ukraine and Russia and responds to it with a strategy of systematic degradation of Russian capabilities. Weakening the oil network, saturating defensive capacities, depleting economic reserves: these are the pillars of an approach that aims for duration rather than quick decision.

This doctrine is uncomfortable for Western allies who would prefer rapid, visible victories. It demands patience, resources sustained over the long term, and a tolerance for escalation risk that some capitals manage poorly. But it is the only realistic strategy for a country of Ukraine's size facing Russia.

The 40 days as a dress rehearsal for a longer strategy

Beyond its immediate effects, the 40-day operation is also a demonstration of capability for the allies: it proves that Ukraine can plan and execute a coherent strategic campaign over time. This is an important signal ahead of the Ankara summit, where decisions on the future level of support for Ukraine will be made.

If NATO allies increase their commitments — as Mark Rutte, Secretary General, has prepared by announcing "tens of billions" in defense contracts — Ukraine could extend this strategy beyond the 40 days. What we are seeing in June 2026 may be the beginning of a prolonged campaign of degradation of Russian military infrastructure.

The 40 days are a window onto what Ukraine can do when it is supported and has the tools. The real stakes at the Ankara summit are whether the West will give Zelensky the means to go further — and to finish what the drones have started.

The legitimacy of Ukrainian resistance

Beyond strategic analyses and budget calculations, there is a fundamental moral question in this war: Ukraine was attacked. Its territory was invaded. Its cities were bombed. Its population suffered deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure. Faced with this reality, Zelensky's 40-day operation is not a provocative escalation — it is a proportionate response to an ongoing aggression.

International law recognizes the right of states to defend themselves against armed aggression — including by carrying the conflict onto the aggressor's territory. Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, military logistics nodes, and war-support infrastructure: all of this is legally and morally justifiable under the framework of collective self-defense against an unprovoked invasion.

What Europe's future depends on the outcome of this war

If Russia wins — or even if it obtains a ceasefire that consecrates its conquests — the message sent to the rest of the world is devastating: armed aggression pays. Internationally recognized borders can be erased by force. Security guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on. This precedent would make Europe — and the world — structurally less safe for decades.

Conversely, if Ukraine resists, preserves its territorial integrity, and forces Russia to pay a price sufficient to deter future aggression: the precedent is reversed. And Zelensky's 40 days directly contribute to building that positive precedent, strike by strike, refinery by refinery.

I cannot be neutral about a war in which the aggressor deliberately bombs hospitals and civilian markets. I stand with Ukraine — not out of sentiment, but out of the conviction that law must have the last word over brute force. And the 40-day operation is force in the service of law.

What the strike campaign teaches military doctrine

Ukraine's deep-strike campaign is writing a new chapter in contemporary military doctrine. It demonstrates that a strategy targeting the adversary's economic and logistical infrastructure can produce significant strategic effects at relatively modest cost. It also reveals the limits of air defense systems when confronted with multiple, distributed, low-altitude threats.

These lessons will be integrated into the defense plans of NATO members — notably in thinking about how to protect their own critical infrastructure against potential adversaries who might adopt similar tactics. The Ankara summit will be an opportunity to initiate these doctrinal adaptations at the collective level.

Ukraine as a global military laboratory

Never in recent history has a war been so extensively observed, analyzed, and documented in real time by so many military actors. Western armies, research institutes, defense industry actors: all are watching the war in Ukraine as the most advanced laboratory of modern conflicts. And the lessons drawn — on drones, artillery, electronic warfare, precision strikes — are already transforming doctrines and equipment.

In this sense, Ukrainian resistance contributes to Western collective security well beyond its own borders. It generates irreplaceable experiential data on the nature of modern warfare. And this contribution, often forgotten in debates about the costs of supporting Ukraine, has considerable strategic value for the alliance as a whole.

Ukraine fights for its survival — and simultaneously, involuntarily, teaches us how to fight. There is something poignant in the fact that a nation suffering so much contributes so much to collective military knowledge. I pay tribute to that contribution, even though it was never chosen.

A strategic turning point in progress

We are in the middle of this 40-day operation as I write. I do not yet know how it will end, or what final tally it will produce. What I do know is that it has already changed something: it has made a coherent Ukrainian strategy visible, it has struck targets whose damage will be lasting, and it has altered the perception of Ukrainian power among allies and adversaries alike.

Zelensky's forty days are a Ukrainian answer to the Russian war of attrition: if you want to play the long game, I will play it too — but on my terms. And my terms include drones at 1,300 km, burning refineries, and pressure you cannot fully absorb.

The future after the 40 days

What will happen after the 40 days? Zelensky has a prepared answer: a longer campaign, with more resources if the allies follow. The Ankara summit will create the conditions — or not — for intensification. What we already know is that Ukraine has demonstrated its capacity to design and execute a systematic pressure strategy. That is irreversible. And Putin will have to learn to live with this new fact.

Forty days that may be in the history books. Not as an isolated victory — but as the demonstration that Ukraine can wage an autonomous and coherent strategic war. That is already enormous. And it is irreversible.

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.