EDITORIAL: Strike far, strike true: why Ukrainian drones are worth more than a thousand speeches

EDITORIAL: Strike far, strike true: why Ukrainian drones are worth more than a thousand speeches

Introduction: The world talks, Ukraine strikes

Four years of war, and a lesson the West is slow to absorb

While Western diplomats polish their communiqués, while experts debate red lines and escalation risks, while governments measure their support to the millimeter of political anxiety — Ukraine strikes. It strikes 1,300 kilometers deep into Russian territory, it knocks out the refineries fueling Putin's war machine, it demonstrates that concrete, immediate, measurable solutions exist to a war that too many Westerners have decided to treat as an abstract problem.

The June 25, 2026 strike on the Bashneft refineries in Ufa is one of those moments that invite a fundamental reassessment of received wisdom. We thought Ukrainian drones could not reach the Urals. We thought Russia's geographic depth was sufficient protection. We thought Ukraine was condemned to a defensive, reactive, exhausting war. All three certainties have just been blown away in black smoke over Bashkiria.

The editorialist owns his positions: here is why I applaud

Allow me to be direct from the outset, as I have committed to being: I am for these strikes. Entirely. Without ambiguity. Not because destruction is beautiful — it never is — but because every destroyed Russian refinery, every liter of unproduced Russian diesel, every unmanufactured missile is one step fewer toward Ukrainian suffering. When Kyiv's drones burn Putin's oil, they protect the children of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv. It is that simple and that brutal.

I am a columnist, not a diplomat. My role is not to manage geopolitical sensitivities. My role is to say what I see, to analyze what it means, and to own the conclusions that follow — even when they unsettle those who prefer caution to clarity. So here is the clarity: Ukrainian drones are worth more than a thousand speeches of support, and that is why this editorial exists.

Western discourse and its dangerous euphemisms

The "red lines" that never existed

Since the start of the war, the West has drawn "red lines" that arms deliveries to Ukraine must not cross. Western tanks: red line. Fighter jets: red line. Long-range missiles to strike Russian territory: red line. And every time a line was crossed — sometimes by Ukraine itself, often after lengthy hesitation — nothing happened. No nuclear escalation. No Third World War. Not even a proportionate Russian response.

This track record should force a radical revision of the "red lines" doctrine. These lines were not observations of geopolitical reality — they were projections of a Western fear that Putin expertly exploited. Every time the West spontaneously drew a red line, it offered the Kremlin a free leverage point. Ukraine, by developing its own drones and striking where it judges necessary, short-circuited this paralyzing mechanism. And it was right to do so.

Tepid support and its real consequences

The "cautious" support for Ukraine — weapons delivered in insufficient quantities, restricted use authorizations, hesitation at every threshold crossing — has had real, documented human consequences. Ukrainian counter-offensives that failed for lack of sufficient equipment. Cities that burned because air defense systems arrived too late. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians killed or wounded while the West debated what it was "reasonable" to provide.

I do not minimize the internal political constraints of Western governments. I understand that convincing parliaments, public opinions, and media takes time and compromise. But I refuse the idea that this institutional caution was inevitable, or that its human costs were acceptable. Ukraine has paid in blood what the West saved in political comfort. This is a deeply unjust trade.

The drone doctrine: a revolution the West underestimates

Not a substitute weapon — a transformative weapon

Many Western observers long treated Ukrainian drones as an imperfect substitute for the "real" weapons Ukraine could not afford. F-16s, Leopard 2s, Scalp missiles — those were the real weapons, people thought. Drones were fine for surveillance and small strikes, but not for changing the dynamics of the war. Ufa, on June 25, 2026, definitively dismantled that view.

A drone that travels 1,300 km and strikes a strategic oil installation is not a substitute tool. It is a transformative tool. It redefines distances, the boundaries of vulnerability, the relationship between attacker and defender. And it does so at a unit cost that makes the strategy economically sustainable for Ukraine. Tens of thousands of dollars for a drone versus millions for a Russian interceptor missile: Ukraine has found the lever that lets it impose costs on an economy ten times its own size.

The Ukrainian lesson NATO must integrate before Ankara

The NATO Ankara summit, July 7-8, 2026, is the opportunity to formally integrate Ukrainian lessons into Alliance doctrines. Secretary General Rutte said it clearly before the Atlantic Council on June 25: the Alliance is learning from Ukraine in the area of drones and counter-drones. But "learning" is not enough — it requires investing, producing, deploying.

The 5% of GDP in defense spending by 2035 that Rutte wants to enshrine at Ankara must explicitly include a major component of long-range drone production and anti-drone defense systems. If NATO exits Ankara with statements of intent on tanks and fighter jets without integrating the drone revolution, it will have missed the most important rendezvous of the decade with the reality of modern combat.

The moral argument: striking refineries is the right thing to do

Just war theory and the defense of Ukrainian civilians

I want to address the moral question head-on. Some will object that striking refineries — even legitimate military targets — is a form of violence we should regret. I understand this argument in its humanist version. But I turn it back: what is the alternative? Leave the refineries running so their products fuel the tanks, planes, and missiles that kill Ukrainians? That is also a moral choice — and a terrible one.

Just war theory, which goes back to Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, recognizes that violence can be justified when it is proportionate, necessary, and aimed at protecting innocent people from unjust aggression. Ukraine, in striking the refineries that fuel Russia's war machine, satisfies all three criteria. This is proportionate violence, necessary to defend its civilian population, aimed at reducing the offensive capacity of the aggressor. There is no difficult moral dilemma here — there is a clear choice between defending Ukrainians and failing to do so.

The false equivalence I reject

In some Western debates, one hears a false equivalence between Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries and Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. This equivalence is morally and factually wrong. Ukraine strikes industrial installations directly linked to the Russian war effort. Russia deliberately strikes Ukrainian thermal and hydroelectric power plants, depriving millions of civilians of electricity and heat in winter, as well as residential buildings, markets, and shopping centers.

The intent is different, the effects are different, the legitimacy is radically different. Treating these two types of strikes as equivalent is not neutrality — it is a form of false objectivity that objectively advantages the aggressor. And I refuse to participate in this intellectual construction, even dressed in the respectable language of "both sides."

Russia's war economy: a system cracking under pressure

More than 40% of the federal budget devoted to defense

For those who still doubt the effectiveness of Ukrainian strikes, the figures from Russia's war economy deserve to be stated plainly. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte declared before the Atlantic Council on June 25, 2026 that Russia now devotes more than 40% of its federal budget to defense — perhaps even close to 50%. More than 70% of its tax revenues are absorbed by the war effort. Its sovereign wealth fund "is gradually being depleted." And refining production has fallen by one-third.

These figures do not describe a healthy economy comfortably bearing the cost of war. They describe a war economy sacrificing its future to sustain an aggression. An economy that is devouring its reserves, strangling its non-military productive sectors, and accumulating debts that will weigh on future generations of Russians. Every Ukrainian strike on a refinery accelerates this degradation. And the faster this degradation accelerates, the greater the pressure on Putin's regime to find a way out of the war.

An $80 billion deficit and bonds at 15%

Russia's budget deficit has exceeded $80 billion according to United24 Media of June 23, 2026. Russian government bonds carry yields of approximately 15% — a sign that investors demand a rising risk premium to hold Russian debt. The IMF, according to data compiled by the Kiel Institute, revised its Russian growth forecast for 2026 downward to 0.8%, with GDP in the first quarter at -0.2%.

This economic picture is not that of a stable, confident economy. It is that of a system drawing down its reserves to finance a war it can no longer afford on normal economic fundamentals. And with each refinery taken offline, this picture deteriorates further. Ukraine is not just defending itself — it is waging an economic war that it is beginning to win at a speed that diplomatic conferences have yet to reflect.

Resistance to supporting Ukraine: the arguments I find unconvincing

The fatigue argument: but at whose expense?

One of the most commonly heard arguments for tempering support for Ukraine is that of "fatigue" — fatigue of public opinion, fatigue of governments, fatigue of budgets. It is true that international mobilization around Ukraine has had its ups and downs since 2022. Some countries have reduced their arms deliveries, others have quietly loosened their sanctions, others have begun envisaging "negotiated exits" that would amount to Ukrainian capitulation.

But I want to turn this argument around: who, exactly, are we talking about when we say Western public opinions are "tired"? Not the Ukrainians, who do not have the luxury of fatigue — they keep burying their dead. Not the populations of eastern flank countries, who live a few hundred kilometers from an army that has demonstrated its brutality. "Western fatigue" is a geopolitical privilege that some exercise at the expense of those who do not have that luxury.

The economic cost argument: comparing figures honestly

Another recurring argument against unlimited support for Ukraine is the economic cost to donor countries. The billions spent on weapons, budget aid, refugee programs — all of this has a real cost. But let us compare figures honestly. European and Canadian allies have spent an additional $1.2 trillion on defense from 2016 to 2026 according to Rutte. Only a fraction of this amount went directly to Ukraine.

And the cost of a Russian victory? A Russia victorious in Ukraine is not a satisfied Russia — it is an emboldened Russia, ready for the next aggression. The scenarios of an attack on the Baltic states or Poland circulating in European capitals according to The Guardian of June 27, 2026 show that military experts no longer dismiss these scenarios. The cost of a war with a NATO member state would be astronomically higher than the cost of supporting Ukraine. This is a comparison that too many economic arguments against this support refuse to make.

Trump and NATO: the necessary evil that must transcend itself

What Trump has done right, against his better instincts

I must be honest about Donald Trump. His policy toward NATO and Ukraine has been erratic, often intimidating, at times genuinely dangerous for Alliance cohesion. The White House incident with Zelensky, the suspension and reinstatement of intelligence sharing with Ukraine, repeated threats to reduce American engagement in Europe — all of this has caused harm. But Rutte himself said it before the Atlantic Council: allies "would not have made such a leap without President Trump's leadership." Europe increased its defense spending as never before, in part because of Trump's pressure.

This is the paradox of Trump in this conflict: he is the unexpected fuel of the transformation of European defense. By threatening to disengage, he forced Europe to seriously consider defending itself alone. The nearly 20% increase in defense spending in 2025, the $1.2 trillion in additional spending between 2016 and 2026, the rise of European defense industries — all of this bears, in part, Trump's involuntary signature.

The persistent dangers of American unpredictability

But I will not present Trump as a strategist of European defense reinforcement who planned it all. His unpredictability remains the primary structural threat to NATO's credibility in the face of Russia. According to The Guardian of June 27, 2026, officials in the Baltic states and Poland find it hard to predict American reactions, traditional communication channels with Washington are less reliable, and the question "would the US intervene if Russia attacked the Baltics?" remains without a definitive answer.

This uncertainty is dangerous because it may be read by Putin as an invitation to adventurism. If the Russian president calculates that Trump would hesitate or refuse to invoke Article 5 in the event of a Russian attack on a Baltic state, the risk of a calculated aggression rises. This is why Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries also have indirect strategic value: they show that Ukraine — and therefore the West by association — has real offensive capabilities that can reach deep into Russian territory. This is not the same signal as promising hypothetical responses to hypothetical aggressions.

China, Iran, North Korea: the accomplices the West must sanction harder

The external backers of Russia's war machine

Ukraine's drone campaign against Russian refineries unfolds within a broader geopolitical context in which Russia benefits from considerable external support. Iran supplies Shahed drones whose designs Russia uses against Ukraine. North Korea sends munitions and soldiers — some of whom have been captured by Ukraine. China provides electronic components, semiconductors, and machine tools that feed Russia's defense industry.

These compliances are documented, known to Western governments, and still insufficiently sanctioned. Measures taken so far against Chinese companies circumventing Russian sanctions remain limited given the scale of commercial flows. North Korea, despite its deliveries of munitions and soldiers to Russia, has not been subjected to meaningful additional pressure. And Iran, engaged in complex nuclear negotiations with the United States, benefits from a certain "diplomatic protection" that limits sanctions tied to its deliveries to Russia.

The 21st sanctions package: an opportunity not to be missed

The European Union is preparing its 21st sanctions package against Russia according to information from June 27, 2026. This package should include additional measures on refining technologies and industrial equipment. But it should also, in my view, include more aggressive secondary sanctions against Chinese and Iranian entities circumventing existing sanctions. The principle is simple: if a Chinese company sells electronic components to a Russian arms factory, that company must pay a real economic cost for that choice.

European hesitations over secondary sanctions against China are understandable — no one wants to trigger a trade war with Beijing. But they carry a cost: by allowing China to support the Russian war effort without consequences, Europe is implicitly accepting to indirectly finance the bombs falling on Ukraine. This is not a defensible position on moral grounds.

The voices from the eastern flank: the most courageous and least heard

The Baltic states and Poland: geography as moral clarity

The countries that most firmly and unambiguously support Ukraine are those sharing a border with Russia or Belarus: the Baltic states and Poland. This is not a coincidence — geography creates moral clarity. When you live a few dozen kilometers from the army that just leveled Mariupol and razed Bakhmut, you do not have the luxury of detached analysis.

These countries are already spending above 5% of GDP on defense — Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are among the NATO members exceeding set targets. They push for harder oil sanctions, unrestricted arms deliveries, unconditional support for Ukraine. According to The Guardian of June 27, 2026, Germany is deploying a full brigade in Lithuania — its first permanent foreign base since the Second World War. These are concrete signals, not declarations.

What Western Europe must learn from the Baltic states

Western Europe — France, Italy, Spain, even Germany until recently — took far longer to grasp the urgency of the situation. Debates over Leopard tanks, fighter jets, long-range missiles dragged on for months while Ukraine waited under fire. Internal political reluctance, historical economic ties with Russia, the comfort of a culture of strategic restraint — all of this delayed decisions that the Baltic states' geography had made obvious from day one.

The belated awakening of some Western partners has finally come. But it remains partial. And Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries should be understood, in this context, as a call to allies to rise to the moment — not in words, but in acts, in weapons, in courageous political decisions.

Drones as the universal language of resistance

Beyond Ukraine: the message to the world's autocrats

Ukrainian strikes 1,300 km deep send a message that transcends the Ukrainian-Russian conflict alone. They tell every authoritarian regime watching this war — in China, Iran, North Korea, the Gulf monarchies — that drone technology has changed the rules of military power. That a small, determined nation can strike at the economic heart of a large, aggressive neighbor. That geographic depth is no longer an absolute protection.

This is a message relevant to Taiwan facing China. It is a message relevant to the Baltic states facing Russia. It is a message relevant to any democracy threatened by an authoritarian neighbor. Ukraine has not only defended its own territory — it has demonstrated that democracies, when they fight with determination and ingenuity, can impose real costs on autocracies. This is a lesson from which the entire world will benefit.

Ukraine's defense industry: a future export for allies

Over the longer term, the drone industry Ukraine has built during this war will likely become an exportable asset to its allies. The operational doctrines, the systems developed, the lessons drawn from thousands of real combat operations — all of this has considerable military and commercial value. In a context where NATO seeks to develop its long-range strike and asymmetric warfare capabilities, Ukrainian defense companies will be natural partners.

This is an additional argument for supporting the development of this industry now — not only because it is right toward Ukraine, but because it is in the long-term strategic interest of the West. Allies investing today in Ukrainian defense capability are investing in their own future security.

The human toll of diplomacy: what speeches have not prevented

The human cost as the ultimate refutation of appeasement

I want to close the central argument of this editorial with a brutal return to human reality. Since the start of the large-scale invasion in 2022, tens of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed — soldiers and civilians combined. Thousands of cities and villages have been destroyed. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced internally or have fled abroad. Russia has committed documented war crimes — execution of civilians, deportation of children, torture in occupied territories.

This toll is the definitive refutation of any policy of appeasement toward Russia. Those who advocated restraint in supporting Ukraine "so as not to provoke Moscow" bear a moral responsibility for this human toll. Not because their intentions were bad, but because their calculations were wrong. Restraint did not appease Putin — it emboldened him. And Ukrainian drones burning Russian refineries do more for Ukrainian security than any diplomatic conference ever organized to "de-escalate" this conflict.

The conclusion history will remember

History will judge this period, as it judged the appeasement policies of the 1930s. It will judge those who supported Ukraine without hesitation — Baltic leaders, some governments and populations who understood from the beginning. It will judge those who delayed, hesitated, maintained restrictions, preferred their political comfort to Ukrainian security. And it will also judge those among observers and commentators who told the truth even when it was uncomfortable.

Ukrainian drones burning Putin's refineries at 1,300 km distance are the most eloquent answer to all the talk about "complexity" and "red lines." They say: Ukraine fights, Ukraine innovates, Ukraine will not capitulate. And they ask the West: will you rise to meet this fight?

Pressure on Putin: when refineries become the regime's Achilles heel

The Russian economic model struck at its source

The economic edifice that Vladimir Putin has built rests on a simple equation: hydrocarbon exports finance the state, the state finances the army, the army guarantees the regime. Striking the refineries means cutting the first link in this chain. Rosneft, which controls the Ufa refineries through its subsidiary Bashneft, is far more than an oil company — it is the central economic instrument of the Putin system. Every Ukrainian strike on its installations is a direct attack on the regime's capacity to fund itself.

Russia's budget deficit, already exceeding $80 billion according to United24 Media of June 23, 2026, makes this pressure particularly painful. An economy devoting more than 70% of its tax revenues to defense — a figure cited by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on June 25, 2026 — cannot afford additional oil revenue losses without severe consequences. Ukrainian strikes worsen a financial hemorrhage that is already bleeding the regime dry.

The multiplier effect of combined sanctions and strikes

What makes Ukraine's strategy particularly effective is its synergy with Western sanctions. Sanctions prevent Russia from importing the advanced refining technologies it would need to quickly repair its installations. Strikes create the damage that sanctions prevent from being corrected. This is a multiplier effect: the damage caused by drones lasts far longer than it would under normal conditions, precisely because sanctions block rapid repairs.

This combination — which Ukraine and its allies may not have deliberately coordinated in all its details, but which functions with relentless logic — constitutes one of the most effective economic pressures ever exerted on a war economy. It will not destroy Putin tomorrow. But it shortens the time horizon of his capacity to finance the war without compromising other economic and social priorities.

Ukraine and the diplomacy of strength: what Zelensky brings to Ankara

Negotiating from strength, not weakness

The NATO summit in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026 is the next major diplomatic appointment of this war. Zelensky will attend with a trump card: deep strikes on Russian refineries that demonstrate Ukraine is acting with initiative and producing concrete results. In an Alliance where some members sometimes question the effectiveness of support for Ukraine, these results are priceless arguments.

"Diplomacy of strength" — the capacity to negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness — is the only diplomacy worth anything in this conflict. Putin only respects strength. He has proven it every time a Western position of weakness has allowed him to advance without consequences. The strikes on Ufa and Kapotnya are the Ukrainian version of this diplomacy of strength: they say that Ukraine does not need anyone's permission to strike the infrastructure financing its own annihilation.

Ukraine's objectives at Ankara and what to expect

At Ankara, Zelensky will seek confirmation of the 5% of GDP defense spending commitment for all allies, accelerated arms deliveries, and reinforced support for the oil embargo that the Baltic states and Poland are demanding according to the Kyiv Post of June 27, 2026. These objectives are ambitious, but they are carried by the show of strength that Zelensky's 40 days have constituted. Ukraine is not asking for charity — it is asking for consistency.

If Ankara delivers on these commitments, the combination of Ukrainian drones and reinforced Western support could constitute the decisive turning point that many have been awaiting since the start of the invasion. If Ankara disappoints, Ukraine will continue fighting alone, with its own means, as it has done since day one. But every day of Western hesitation carries a price — a price paid in Ukrainian lives.

Zelensky facing history: a president who chooses total resistance

War leadership as an existential choice

There are few moments in recent history where a leader's character has been tested as profoundly as that of Volodymyr Zelensky. In February 2022, when Russian tanks were advancing on Kyiv and Western chancelleries were offering him evacuation, he chose to stay. That decision changed everything. It transformed a potentially swift military invasion into a national resistance war. And it positioned Zelensky as the symbol of that resistance in the eyes of the world.

The announcement of the 40-day operation is part of this leadership logic. This is not a president waiting to be saved — this is a president planning offensives, announcing his intentions, rendering accounts to his people and his allies. In a world where political leaders excel at diluting their responsibility in ambiguous formulations, Zelensky's clarity is a remarkable political singularity.

The legacy in progress: what this war says about Ukraine

Whatever the final outcome of this conflict — and I do not claim to know it — Ukraine has already inscribed something irrefutable in contemporary history: a democracy has stood up to one of the world's largest armies, innovated under fire, and brought the economic war to the industrial heartland of its aggressor. This is not propaganda. It is a historical fact being written in real time, of which every drone strike is an additional chapter.

Ukraine will emerge from this war transformed. Wounded, certainly — the destruction is immense, the human losses terrible. But also stronger, more united, more conscious of its own capacity to defend itself and innovate. And with a defense industry that will be one of the most advanced in the world, with unique operational experience. This is the legacy that Ukrainian resistance is building right now, one drone at a time.

Conclusion: The drone as a political declaration

What every strike says, and what it asks

Every Ukrainian drone that strikes a Russian refinery is a political declaration as much as a military tool. It says: Ukraine exists, resists, and refuses to accept the terms of its own destruction. It says: there are alternatives to accepting aggression, concrete and effective responses to brute power. It also says: we are doing our part. The rest of the world must do its own.

The Kapotnya refinery burns until 2027. The Ufa plants saw smoke rise over them. Russian refining production has fallen by one-third. These are not slogans — they are facts, verified, sourced, important. And they are worth more than a thousand speeches of support, more than all the conferences where well-dressed leaders shake hands before cameras and promise to "stand by Ukraine." Because facts, unlike speeches, can be measured. And in June 2026, the facts say that Ukraine is waging an economic war it is winning, one drone at a time.

The invitation to the West: moving from words to action

The Ankara summit on July 7-8, 2026 is the opportunity to move from words to action. The 5% of GDP in defense spending, the tens of billions in contracts, the unconditional support for Ukraine — all of this must be put on the table with the same resolve that Zelensky brings to his drones. Ukraine cannot do it alone. It needs allies equal to its courage. And courage is not expressed in declarations — it is measured in actions.

Ukrainian drones are worth more than a thousand speeches. But Ukraine needs both — drones to strike refineries, and speeches that translate into concrete action. Ankara is the appointment. Let's be there.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My positions, stated plainly

This article is an editorial. It does not claim neutrality and does not seek it. It is explicitly pro-Ukraine, pro-arming Ukraine, and critical of appeasement policies. These are my positions, they are owned, and I presented them clearly in the text. The reader is invited to evaluate them in light of the facts I cited — facts verified and sourced in the Sources section.

I strive to distinguish my opinions — signaled by editorial markers — from the verified facts I report. When I cite a figure, it comes from an identifiable source. When I express an opinion, I present it as such. If this distinction is not always perfect in an editorial — by nature more personal than a news report — I apologize for it and invite the reader to verify each fact in the cited sources.

What I cannot know with certainty

I do not know whether the deep-strike strategy will, alone, be sufficient to change the course of the war. I do not know whether Putin will draw political conclusions from Russia's economic degradation or whether, on the contrary, he will use it to reinforce his nationalist rhetoric. I do not know whether the Ankara summit will produce the courageous decisions I am calling for. These uncertainties are real, and acknowledging them is part of the intellectual honesty I owe the reader.

What I know is that the facts available on June 27, 2026 indicate growing economic pressure on Russia, an effective Ukrainian deep-strike campaign, and a diplomatic context where decisions made in the coming weeks could have lasting consequences on the outcome of this conflict. It is on this terrain of relative certainty that I speak.

Sources

Primary sources

Euromaidan Press — Drones flew 1,300 km, struck Bashneft refineries in Ufa — June 25, 2026

Militarnyi / Reuters — Moscow refinery paralyzed until 2027, gasoline imports by sea — June 24, 2026

The Guardian — NATO leaders fear they can no longer rely on US help — June 27, 2026

Secondary sources

NATO / Atlantic Council — Rutte: Russian economy, defense spending, Ankara summit — June 25, 2026

United24 Media — Russia's budget deficit exceeds $80 billion — June 23, 2026

RBC-Ukraine — Russia's economy has reached a dead end, Zelensky adviser — June 26, 2026

Daily Finland — EU proposes 21st package of sanctions against Russia — June 27, 2026