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

> 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 K

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Commentary
- Published: 2026-06-28
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/commentaire-quarante-jours-de-frappes-l-operation-de-pression-que-zelensky-a-lan

## Key takeaways

- The operation targets fuel depots, rail junctions, arms storage, energy infrastructure, and occupied Crimea, with strikes on Kapotnya in Moscow and Bashneft in Ufa cited as examples.
- The author argues that announcing the campaign publicly turns each strike into evidence of a plan and strengthens Ukraine's case for allied support.
- Summer 2026 is presented as a window of opportunity, given long-range drone maturity, Russian air defense gaps, and the Ankara summit on July 7 and 8.
- The author frames the strategy as degrading Russia's logistics over time, a bet on duration rather than quick results.
- The piece argues Ukraine's resistance is morally and legally justified as self-defense, and that its drone campaign offers lessons for NATO military doctrine.

## Introduction: A campaign named, dated, and owned

### 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.*

## The military context: why these 40 days, why now

### 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.*

## Crimea in the 40-day equation

### 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.*

## Strikes on railways: disrupting the logistics machine

### 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 psychological dimension: when pressure becomes communication strategy

### 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.*

## What the 40 days reveal about Kyiv's long-term strategy

### 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 moral dimension: why Ukraine must win

### 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.*

## Operational lessons for future wars

### 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.*

## Conclusion: Forty days that could count in the history of this war

### 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**

## Columnist's transparency note

### 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.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [RBC-Ukraine — Zelensky announces 40-day pressure operation — June 26, 2026](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-and-russia-complete-third-phase-of-1782478036.html)

- [Euromaidan Press — Drones struck Bashneft refineries in Ufa — June 25, 2026](https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/06/25/drones-flew-1300-km-to-russias-ufa-then-struck-bashneft-refineries/)

- [Newsweek — Kapotnya struck, operation context — June 25, 2026](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-oil-gold-ukraine-war-12118804)

- [Militarnyi/Reuters — Moscow refinery offline — June 24, 2026](https://militarnyi.com/en/news/moscow-refinery-unlikely-to-resume-operations-after-drone-strikes-until-2027-reuters/)

### Secondary sources

- [NATO/Rutte — Tens of billions in defense contracts announced for Ankara — June 25, 2026](https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/transcripts/2026/06/25/atlantic-council-front-page-conversation-with-nato-secretary-general-mark-rutte)

- [Brookings — A rebalancing NATO gathers in Ankara — June 24, 2026](https://www.brookings.edu/events/a-rebalancing-nato-gathers-in-ankara/)

- [United24 Media — Russia's budget deficit tops $80 billion — June 23, 2026](https://united24media.com/world/russias-budget-deficit-tops-80-billion-despite-kremlin-stability-claims-20083)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/commentaire-quarante-jours-de-frappes-l-operation-de-pression-que-zelensky-a-lan